Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Author Archive

ISIS threatens to destroy Chicago and Americans shrug

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/22

 

“E Pluribus Unum” no more.

WGNtv Chicago posts the alarming “news” that ISIS has the destruction of Chicago in its sights.

And Americans fed up with the totalitarian collectivists and moral nihilist appetite entities of the left who have already eaten away at not only our civilization but at our heritage of liberties, react with a shrug at the notion of the mayor of chicago trapped in the flaming ruins of the ecological niche his leftist ambition fouls and undermines.

We recall of course  that some 13 years ago progressive propagandist and cherished celebrity, His Rotundity Michael Moore, infamously set the stage for the spread of this attitude, when he asked in dismay why the Muslims had to attack New York, a liberal metropolis, rather than some conservative heartland site.

Gee, if the terrorists had just murdered conservative Christians, then Michael Moore could have understood, and maybe even sympathized.

Yeah Michael you submoral dog. So much for E Pluribus Unum, eh?

Well, thirteen years into it, those Americans who still value liberty and self-direction have gotten so used to the homicidal malice of the collectivist class, that they now, in turn, shrug at the thought of the collectivists themselves being destroyed by morally alien forces.

The underlying question is: What do you actually lose, when a malevolent parasite which has attached itself to you through your own long suffering tolerance and forbearance, is swept away by another?

Many have noticed that modern liberalism and Islamism are both anti-liberty of conscience, socially fascistic, and legally totalitarian ideologies. Many freedom loving Americans, less naive than their parents and grandparents, are apparently now prepared to stand back and watch “Hitler “and “Stalin” destroy each other; even if the war takes place on our own soil.

The question of whether the destruction would have unstoppably catastrophic side effects aside, it’s hard to blame a free man for shrugging at the destruction of those emotionalists who are, and have been, working for decades to destroy his freedom and ultimately his life.

What has a free man got to lose, when one flavor of collectivist is killed by another?

 

 

UPDATE:

Now here is something puzzling: the comments don’t seem to load up from the WGNtv link above anymore. Nor from the old (earlier today) history link, nor from internal links in the web page I preserved .

So, as a fair comment proof of this post’s contention, I shall quote a few of the more temperate comments below. Recognizable personal names are redacted, and discernibly racist crackpot bigotry is deleted.

 

            *****

    • J********a

      Dear Chicago,
      God forbid that you should fry like so many little french fries caught in the searing heat of a deep fryer. But, if you do, remember it was you and your kin that put Obama in office. You gave us a slug of a president whose ability in foreign affairs is zero to none.
      I will feel sorry for you later, because right now I can’t.

      w*****9

      Chicago goes up and this president must be removed before he takes the rest of the country down Impeachment and removal. He has clearly shown a total disregard for the security of this country and dares play golf at a time of crisis. Unfortunately, with ISIS here, possibly, we will need to employ every weapon at our disposal to eliminate them and their threat. Without security, what good is anything.

      1Yousuck

      perfect target! beautiful poetic justice!

      make no mistake. obama, democrats, libs, etc…truly believe in the undoing of Aimerican pride, power, success, etc…and a much more destructive and impoverished world is the natural result, when you undercut a free people.

      so, let the reaping of their sowing be true. these dark-hearted people are intent on allowing more evil, and letting it come here. therefore, let it come upon them FIRST!

      my prayer since obama’s first election has been simple: let ALL them that voted for him reap to the fullest, what they have sown: social degradation (ferguson), economic failure (unemployment, welfarism), and ground zero as the next terrorist attack (chicago)

       

      gunnyginalaska

      Dear ISIS, if you can’t hit Sh*tcago, might I suggest other cities like Oakland, SF, Trenton, Filthadelphia, Camden, Detoilet, or any other city full of liberals will work.

      *****

      Chicago and their corrupt leftist progressive politician’s polices and the “peaceful” muslims who live among them deserve each other.

      Iraq/Afg Vet

      Most Americans don’t have the stomach for what it would take to truly rid the world of this cancer. Rules of Engagement, the enemy using human shields and hiding in schools, religious temples and mosques all make any operation dicey, and open to scrutiny by those too meek to even take part — but not afraid to arm-chair QB. Once again, the U.S. is alone because our allies in Europe don’t have the stones to do what is needed. Once again, we will inevitably come to the rescue and risk our troops, spend our money and resources, and bear the burden of fighting another terrorist group in someone else’s backyard — while the rest of the world does nothing but judge. The only way to rid the world of these guys is to take them head on with severe malice. No more of the ticky-tack, PC, inoffensive stuff. Either we go in guns blazing and with bad intentions, or we sit out and tell the rest of the world to figure it out.

      Psalmon

      1. Sickens me to hear O talk about Justice for anyone who harms Americans, when he does nothing on Benghazi
      2. John Kerry our SOS keeps claiming Climate Change is our #1 threat

      These guys are almost bigger lunatics than ISIS.

 

Posted in Islam, Liberal, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, society, terrorists, Uncategorized, We Won't Miss You | 5 Comments »

Justifiably killing Michael Brown

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19

One of the issues we have had to confront over and over again in the political wrangles over how we shall live under law together, if indeed we shall continue to do so, is the issue of wildly differing personal boundaries.

It’s clear that liberals on the one side and libertarians and conservatives on the other have what appear to be very different and even antithetical psychological and perhaps even organic expectations and requirements.

Think back to the days of liberal rage and hope in the 1960s and 1970s. Their anthems, their secular prayers, their hopes and dreams were full of collectivist and “community” yearnings. Yeah, some of it was conscious communism, watered down so as to seem humanistic and full of feeling, but, I think, much of it represented their natural yearnings. “No man is an island”, “Attention must be paid!”, “unconditional love” and I will lay me down for you like a bridge over troubled waters, yada yada yada.

Give me a moment … I can’t effen breathe in the humidity generated by that last series of liberal-mentality quotes.

Ok, so anyway the interpenetrative masochism, so to the taste of the left – the experience of which both convinces the leftist it has a “right” to exist while adding a fillip of sexually perverse excitement to his politics – is what sets the leftist anthropoid apart from morally redeemable human beings. The craving for submission and suffering simply cannot be unwound from the leftist DNA. It is after all, what makes them what they are, and is why they behave in the way they do.

In line with this, has anyone noticed that few if any have asked if the shop clerk who was assaulted and battered by Michael Brown would have been morally justified in standing his ground and killing Brown if necessary?

Where did Michael Brown presumptively derive the right to lay hands on another with impunity?

The man he assaulted was in fact small, and seemed to offer little if any resistance to Brown’s attack. But under what theory of law was he, dog-like, obligated not to do so? When did we reach the point in this country when an inoffensive person is considered morally bound to accept a battering or maiming for the sake of the well-being of a malicious and battering offender? How exactly is this equation rendered?

 

Here is an interesting video. Would it have been right and just for this woman to have killed her assailant? After all, she didn’t die herself.

 

http://newjersey.news12.com/multimedia/beating-attack-of-young-mother-caught-on-surveillance-video-1.5562236

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/29/arrest-made-in-nyc-suspect-in-nj-home-invasion-caught-on-nanny-cam/

 

Now our friend Michael Brown, this is a picture of Michael Brown below, did not break down a bolted door in order to beat the living shit out of a mother in front of her terrified daughter.

Brown from various sources

Brown from various sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, Michael Brown allegedly but feloniously robbed the Ferguson Market and Liquor store and assaulted – and technically battered – the employee.

 

Brown assaults employee while robbing store

Brown assaults employee while robbing store

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then when Michael was allegedly finished robbing and assaulting at the market, he went strolling down the middle of the traffic lanes of a nearby street; whereupon, he assaulted – allegedly – a passing police officer who had asked him to stop blocking traffic and move to the sidewalk.

Now to put the cherry on top so to speak, he allegedly battered this police officer, tried to take away the cop’s gun, and then after a shot was discharged in the struggle over possession of the cop’s weapon, he briefly ran from the fracas he had started. He then, reportedly, turned about (was this guy channeling Trayvon?) taunted, and then charged at the cop.

Well, let’s place all the “alleged” material off to the side as provisional, as bracketed, and to this point hypothetical. And let’s consider the scenario in a hypothetical worst case scenario way; and here’s the big problem remaining.

Do grant for the sake of argument – and to this moment only for the sake of argument – that Michael Brown did indeed feloniously steal 50 bucks worth of cigars in a brazen strong arm robbery wherein he also assaulted and technically battered an employee. Grant further that he then sauntered down the middle of a public street interfering with traffic and thereby attracting the attention of a police officer who asked him to move out of the traffic lane and onto the walkway.

Further grant – for the sake of argument only – that Michael Brown did in fact refuse to do move out of the traffic lane, and attacked the cop in his car when the cop subsequently pulled up ahead in order to deal with the situation on foot. Grant also that Michael Brown battered the cop’s face. Grant that Michael Brown tried to take the officer’s weapon, and shoot the officer with it, only running off when he failed.

Grant that after Brown ran a short distance, he turned about after some modest number of feet, faced the cop who was ordering him to stop, and then taunted the cop: finally, charging him in order to … well Michael Brown only knows.

Amazingly in doing this, you have to grant felony robbery, and felony assault on a police officer; and probably attempted murder.

Yet if you grant all of that, and apparently some do even on Michael’s side, here is the problem remaining. Michael Brown’s apologists still don’t think that the police response was appropriate.

Now would they possibly alternatively concede that it would have been appropriate for the puny little store clerk to have killed Brown with a weapon, if, say, the preservation of clerk’s own bodily integrity while under active assault and battery, had depended on it?

No, I am convinced most on the left would not.

And I think we have good evidence for this conclusion: Trayvon Martin. After the bloodied face and skull of Zimmerman was finally shown, after it was eventually geometrically demonstrated that if Trayvon’s so-called girlfriend was to be believed at all, then Trayvon had had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to confront and attack him; even after the slim drink business; even after the burglar tools; even after the other fights and assaults … none of it mattered.

And not only to his family did it not matter, but neither to elderly white leftist provocation specialist trash like Perry Hood, or now our erstwhile commenter John The Liberal of American Liberal Times blog.

You might think that these moral miscreants are deliberately trying to cause a social Armageddon. But the more likely explanation is that they just don’t care, or are incapable of caring, about the truth.

Because in the final analysis, Michael Brown’s most ardent apologists, of whatever color or ethnic makeup, are simply moral aliens, people who have and who recognize no boundaries at all when it comes to satisfying their urges and wants, but who expect that those upon whom they impose, wheedle,  and often violently prey, will always submit.

Moral alien activists expect that they, or their social pets at least, may rape and plunder and assault, and that the victims will properly respond with unending and self-destructive restraint: all the better to abide the very rules which the Michael Browns and Trayvon Martins and Bill Ayers of the world sneer at. In other words they expect that all men will act like the pathetic and contemptible masochists we know as old white liberal males.

It is clear enough that we know who is actually doing the dying as a result of this poisonous attitude and psychology.

Maybe we should ask from a more broadly moral perspective, who really should be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A moment of reflection …

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19

I’ve taken a backward glance at a number of the posts I have put up in recent months, and noticed what has become a recurring theme for me: the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the everyday left and its mouthpieces.

I also notice that in choosing the most plainspoken and idiomatic terms available, I have repeatedly labeled their condition “stupidity”.

Now, this “Dishonest stupidity of everyday Progressives” business, is not a theme I have intentionally chosen to harp on. It is simply the result of watching what everyday progressives do, of listening carefully (and dispassionately above all else) to what they themselves say, and of then evaluating the narrative they are putting forth for (presumably) our consumption, for its logical coherence, evidence of intellectual integrity, and overall sense.

It is startling to reflect that in the process of reviewing so many different progressives’ work for intellectual coherence and truth value, I have been inexorably led to the same end-point; a place wherein I was confronted with the obvious:  that progressives habitually lie, are untroubled by their lying and duplicity, and that they are not even very clever in doing it.

Katie Halper, John The Liberal, Benjamin Crump, progressives big and small, public and not so public, they are all essentially the same ends-justify-the-means types who live in a world of moral convenience: one which they ultimately strive to order for their emotional comfort and satisfaction.

Ann Coulter sometime ago commented that despite the progressive’s constant talk of intelligence as if it were a cardinal if not the supreme, moral virtue, they seem to be quite deficient when it comes to exercising it themselves or in applying that intelligence standard to members of their political client class.

And perhaps that is the key, and why I placed the word “presumably” in parentheses when I said above that progressives were speaking for “our consumption”. They really are not. The progressives are not trying to convince us. Instead, as David Horowitz had made himself blue in the face pointing out, their rhetoric is not designed to convince us of the validity of their reasoning, so much as to wage social war upon us by manipulating emotionally immature, and mentally limited third parties.

Knowing their own herd then,  given who they themselves are, what they value, and who it is that aligns with them, they know that they need not be careful, accurate, or truthful; and that emotion and sarcasm serve their ends better than reason.

As their chosen audience has presumptively little or nothing in the way of critical faculties or genuine knowledge, they need not trouble themselves too much when it comes to arousing them.

“Stupid”, may not be the most artful word to describe the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of political progressives. But apart from terms such as “nihilist”, “self-serving hypocrite”, or “evil”, it seems upon consideration, to be the most accurate.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Liberal, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Have a drink, listen, and watch the sunset

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

As the American polity stumbles under the weight of the brainless and behaviorally incontinent, recall to mind that the human spirit is larger than this present time, or even this nation.

So although we look toward the future of our own country and our people with confidence, we can also spend some moments in appreciating the heritage of the wider western world.

It’s not all jabbering leftists and snorting buffoons.

From YouTube, the famous adagio from the Concierto de Aranjuez performed by Angel Romero for a United Nations concert many years ago.

John Williams and other classical guitarists have performed this too, but as a Spaniard himself, the feeling Romero brings to it seems to be especially evocative.

 

 

Posted in Entertainment | Leave a Comment »

Speaking of leftist, stupid, and apparently illiterate: Benjamin Crump, anyone?

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

From his website: Intellectual powerhouse Benjamin Crump.

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the screen capture below and weep for civilization.

Three so-called “Esquires”, all signing off on a contemptibly inflammatory polemic intended to shift attention away from what appears to be a steadily creeping indictment of the moral character of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri.

And all they succeed in demonstrating is their own moral and intellectual incompetence.

See the first paragraph issued by these legal geniuses: “piece mil” for “piecemeal”.  Unfortunately for them, it is the kind of error spell check won’t catch; since, both “piece” and “mil” are real words.

So three activist lawyers rush to the scene of a fiasco, put their demonstrably sub-par heads together, and that is what results.

 

Crump the illiterate crop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did they write the nonsense they published above? Who knows? But it appears over Crump’s name.

 

Did they read it? Again, who knows? But one is justified in presuming that material published over a man’s name has at least been read by him.

 

Three blow-hard publicity seeking bomb throwing lawyers, and apparently not one of the sons-of-bitches could spell “piecemeal”.

 

And just in case people are wondering if some AOL typist is responsible for the error in the statement:

 

Crump Esquire's statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of sums it up, doesn’t it?

Posted in politics, society, media, education, Liberal, Law, Humor - For Some, Culture, Insanity | 2 Comments »

The liberalism of the American Liberal Times blog: beyond mere stupidity

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/14

A little while ago I posted on my failed project to enter into a constructive dialog with a liberal … any liberal at all. The latest case being, one John The Liberal, the proprietor of the “American Liberal Times” blog.

That was then.

Today, my morbid curiosity got the best of me and I returned to glance at his blog once again. Like a gruesome accident, it’s hard to look at, and equally hard to look away from.

Well, despite his occasional references to his advancing age, his daily torrent of senescent vitriol seems completely undiminished. The single minded, monomaniacal obsessiveness of it all would astonish me if I had not seen it all before with other elderly liberals.

What remains shocking however, is the near total mental disconnect of these people from reality. In particular, this guy’s worldview must have been formed on another planet entirely.

Just a couple of amazing examples will be provided. Amazing in their brazen intellectual lunacy. Amazing in their psychological autism, and in the obvious inability of the author to self-audit or pay any attention to facts at all.

And bear in mind that for what little it is worth, this fellow regularly purports to be a Christian, if a proudly liberal one, whose God is “love”.

At any rate, introducing just a little more of John The Liberal. (Try not to laugh at the hat.)

American Liberal

Screen Shot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John The Liberal has a few observations and rhetorical-style questions.

We will – as a pure exercise as he will likely never read this – try to help him (or those like him) understand the real world better, and more accurately, through listing his remarks as “questions” and “comments”, and then proposing our “answers”.

 

1, Question  from John:

“It seems that some “Christians” . . . ( I have no reason to doubt they are Christians . . . I am not their judge and jury . . . That is God’s Business) . . . some Christians seems to be Hell-bent ( pardon the unintended pun) on getting themselves into trouble by trying to export their belief system to foreign cultures . . . did you ever notice?”

 

Answer:

Dear John.

Yes we have. This is probably due to the fact that it is a critical and essential part of their faith according to its very Founder. Sometimes it is referred to as “The Great Commission” . You have repeatedly referred to your own religious faith in terms which would lead one to assume that it had, or once had, something to do with Christianity as well. So perhaps you heard of the command to evangelize at one time.

The following references were mostly taken directly from a Bible verse site which easily accessible to anyone looking to confirm.

 

Matthew Chapter 28

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world.
Mark 16:15

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.
Acts 1:8

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Luke 12:8

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God
Mark 4:21

And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?”

 

It should also be noted that Church history records that all the original apostles did in fact “get into trouble” exporting their faith to foreign cultures; with only one apostle even surviving the commission: albeit in exile.  The plain fact is that the faith was at one time foreign to all cultures; even the culture of its homeland.

So yes, John. Many people have noticed.

 

2, Comment from John:

“I am one of those “Liberal Freaks” who firmly believes that if some pew-jumper church starts preaching politics from the pulpit it should lost its tax-exempt status . . . period . . . end of story. Why should they rake in millions of tax-free dollars for their big wig preachers to live high on the hog on and be able to shove their politics down their parishioners’ throats at the same time?

It has nothing to do with “freedum of ree-ligiun” at all.

It has to do with trying to mix politics and religion – – and that is something that simply cannot work out in the long run. …

I’m all in favor of the government taxing the Living Hell out of any church that makes itself a virtual headquarters of some political party.
Share this:callous! I didn’t mean for it to sound that way but I think it has to be asked.)

 

Answer: Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United

 

3, An “observation”  from John The Liberal of American Liberal Times:

“When tyranny comes to a nation it always comes wrapped in a flag and carrying a gun and a Bible.”

Answer:

Really, John?

Pol-Pot Mao Zedong (1) Mao Zedong (2) Robespierre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pol Pot

 

Mao

 

Stalin

 

Robespierre and the efforts of his friends and allies

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Christianity, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Liberal, truth, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

You are a modern liberal …

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/21

 

 

You are a modern liberal

… and you don’t believe in natural rights.

Ok … let’s ask some questions which may even seem silly at first, but which, in the asking, will clear away some of the unhappy vagueness we tend to live with out of social politeness or the fear of seeming too radical.

So:

Do you have, let’s say, a right to breathe? If so, where does this “right” come from? An act of Congress?

Do you have a right to be served by others? If so;

Do they have a right to be served by you? If so;

Do they have a right to serve themselves by not serving you?

 

The questions are too general or abstract or silly or provocative you say? And anyway, it all depends, you say? Alright then, “it all depends”.

In hopes of making some kind of progress, let’s wave away any of the question begging “balancing of rights” or “cultural context” distractions into which you would like segue, and try to press forward instead.

To continue on a slightly different tack.

Do you (yeah you personally) let’s say, have a right to speak freely? If the answer is “yes”, is that “right” merely a contingent legal permission – be it constitutional, statutory, whatever – which you for the time being enjoy? Can you equally well be deprived of that permission in a way which would leave you with no rational cause for complaint to someone else? If you cannot so be deprived without a rational cause for complaint to someone else, do you then claim a more basic right to that express right? If so, how, or upon what, is that claim grounded?

 

You are a modern liberal; and, let’s say for the sake of argument, that I am not.

And you’re determined that you are not  going to “fall for” any of the questions I have asked. A “right” you insist and will boldly maintain, is nothing more than an arbitrarily recognized social permission – that tolerance or support which others are habituated or intimidated into conceding to you. Usually written down if it is to mean anything.

You then as a modern liberal, consistently and without exception or proviso do assert and affirm that the concept of “rights” really renders down to what are in essence, no more than social permissions; having no other objective grounding or reality.

So now, let’s say that you the modern liberal, and I the not-modern-liberal find ourselves on an island. One with no law books.

I’m stronger that you are and … Yeah, yeah, trust me, I am. And, and anyway as I was about to say, although there is enough for both of us to survive, if I kill you now, I can live more than just comfortably. Besides, I find your weakness and whiny-ness annoying.

If I do kill you, have I done anything objectively wrong? If so what is it, and how do you know? Have I thereby, on this law book free island, deprived you of anything that could be called “rights”? Is my killing of you, “unjust” in any sense, even though no judicial writ runs here? If so, then how so; and, how do you know?

Have you any reason to complain over an injustice in my act? Notice I said “reason”; and notice that your utility to me is not an issue here. How would all this be balanced out under a social permission theory of rights?

Well now, I don’t really expect you as a liberal to answer these questions, or to take them seriously, or even to grant that the framing of the speculations is something you would abide or tolerate.

Because of course, these questions are not really meant to change a liberal mind regarding the nature and status of rights by means of pointing out just how incoherent the liberal use of the term rights is, when the term is used in the sense conceived of, and conceded by, liberals.

I know this because I have wasted many hours attempting to get modern-liberals to explain themselves: and their strategy has been, without exception, to either refuse to do so, or to shelter behind the terminology of a moral worldview which they in fact reject.

You liberals, high-minded or low, already know all this too. You know, explicitly or implicitly that you are are spouting clandestinely self-serving rhetoric not reason, and emoting, not deducing, when you speak of “rights”.

So what’s the point?

The point is that: what this exercise is really meant to do is to remind non-liberals that, in the final analysis, modern liberals are motivated by a simple will to power and/or by urges which they themselves don’t care to justify or explore too deeply.

This is a fact of social life which non-liberals need to face, and of which they need to steadily keep reminding themselves.

Liberals are able not only to readily face this view of themselves, they ultimately embrace it; and when pushed to the wall, they will even proclaim it. They see it – entropy, inherent meaninglessness, and ultimate nothingness – as a state of affairs which grants them freedom from ultimate consequences. Insofar of course, as there is a coherent “they” to them, and insofar as “freedom” has any any meaning, insofar as consequences have any significance, and insofar, insofar, insofar …

So, isn’t it about time that conservatives become brave enough to face what it is that liberals are blithely admitting about themselves as liberals?

Its only prudent, after all.

 

Posted in Conservative, Culture, Liberal, Philosophy, Real Life, society, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Conversations with an ardent Liberal

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/08

Conversations with an ardent Liberal … another failed experiment

 

As was apparent from my earlier “We had a liberal visitor” post, I had recently engaged in the project of continuing an exchange with a self-identified liberal blogger named John, who had visited this site and commented on my post concerning the AOL/Huffington Post news comment policy: Now, it’s “Facebook Conversations

For those who might have missed it,  Huffington Post material, unlike strictly AOL articles, of which there are apparently still some, invites comment only through “Facebook conversations”.  In other words if you comment on a news article you will be doing so through your Facebook identity. Assuming you have one.

John basically agreed with my take on the issue and said so. Since he made sure to leave a link to his own blog in his response, I then reciprocated his visit here with one of my own to his site American Liberal Times.

John the Liberal’s site was and is a curious mix of material and attitudes. And to be fair, John the Liberal makes no bones about the fact that it is: stating outright that it is a blog about his opinions and views and that he doesn’t intend to be forced into the position of justifying or defending the logic and reasonableness of his views.

“TERMS OF SERVICE

Some people who stop here and read stuff might get offended at my rather strong and direct tone.

If you get offended by something you read here then I am sorry and I suggest that if you are going to get offended at the way I write my blog then you have the option to immediately leave this blog – read no further and go somewhere else to read.  It is that simple.  If you don’t like my “Program” then just turn the dial and find something else somewhere else on the Internet that you do like better.  No big deal is it?

The second point I would like to make is that I do not ordinarily allow Radical Right Wingers or those who I have come to think of as “Obama Haters” or haters of Democrats, Liberals and Progressives to leave any comments on this site. (I do make some exceptions at my discretion however.)   There are plenty of Right Wing Radical Hate-Mongering blogs on the Internet and if that is your thing then I suggest you find one of those to visit or to haunt or to hang out at because your propaganda and your attitudes are not always welcome on “AMERICAN LIBERAL TIMES”

AMERICAN LIBERAL TIMES”  is my blog and I post whatever I want to post on it and I allow whoever I want to allow to post comments on it and I prohibit anyone from posting or commenting when I don’t like what they have to say and that is my privilege as a blogger and because of the great number of Rightist Numwads and Mindless Ninkos who try to troll me on this blog I rarely – – if ever – – accept any comment from any right wing source anymore.  Too bad!

To the rest of you – – – to anyone who thinks anywhere near the same way as I do – – WELCOME! … “

 

Nonetheless, on June 18th he certainly appeared to make a stab at embracing reasonableness when he volunteered that he was considering tempering the vehemence and vitriol with which his postings were typically imbued.

Courtesy, Respect And Good Taste Never Go Out Of Style!

… I am fully convinced that it is perfectly reasonable and achievable to arrive at the point where we can inform the world we believe a certain politician might not be acting in the best interests of his constituents without resorting to such crudities as “Chief Fraud” or other such juvenile crud-encrusted delicacies of the vernacular.

One favor I would ask of my readers: If you see me engaging in any conversation that seems to you like it might qualify as “Bad Taste” please leave me a comment and alert me to my digression . . . regression. I definitely want to elevate “American Liberal Times” above the level of decency employed by a great number of what I call “Right Wing Hater Blogs.”

I cannot do it alone and that is why I ask my Readers to participate in the process of adding a little more panache to this blog.”

I even congratulated John on this, and figured that with that as a predicate, I might venture on a short-term experiment in order to see just what potential there might be for an actual dialog with a partisan liberal; notwithstanding John’s forthrightness in stating upfront that he was, in essence, interested in no such thing.

A conclusion which was,  I must admit, inescapably reinforced by posts such as this:

7/1/2014

More Changes To The Blog But I Do Not Know If They Will Last:

First of all let me say that I have no idea of whether or not a blog can be crawled by the “Crawlers” without each post being preceded by a formal “Headline.”  But I would say that I am about to find out.  I have seen other blogs with high readership that do not make use of headlines and so I am trying it myself – – for the time being.

Secondly:  I have spent considerable time today going back through the posts on this blog and deleting forever almost all comments left on here by Right Wingers over the years. …”

Now, a man determined to go back years in order to purge any trace of “right-wing” commentary from his blog is not likely to be a man reasoned with easily.

But, John seemed so inordinately grateful for the comments I left,

“Dear DNW:

First of all let me say that I sincerely appreciate your visit today and I am grateful you took your time to comment.”

Dear DNW:
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comment.

… that I wondered if he could not somehow, and against his natural inclinations, be finessed into an intelligent conversation. After all, what’s a month more?  I have already spent years trying to do so with other political progressives. That is, to discover if – contrary to all appearances –  there really is not something like a right reasoning mind behind the modern liberal face; a faculty which could be carefully teased out of the appetitive confusion behind the eyes … some residual capacity, some sputtering wisp of a reasoning soul which could be carefully fanned to life.

Now this would necessarily not be easy. Not only because John had stated that he was not particularly interested in reasoning, but in addition because he posted at such a frantic pace. For example, he placed up what I count as eight posts on July 1st, alone. Perhaps then, comments like these, made in response to my own, should have proved enough.

” … My interpreting principles change like the myriad colors of a Texas sunset because all of Creation is always in a state of flux ( evolving . . always evolving . .) and even in our social order that which was acceptable ages and ages ago ( The stoning of disobedience to death in public spectacles of death ) has now moved forward ( Progressed ) to where public stoning has become abhorrent to most people and some less severe measure has been compromised upon.

I do not care to justify moral preferences or claims because my own moral preference and claims don’t amount to anything of much significance in such a vast and diverse society as ours and in times when generational and demographic changes are on the cusp of making cataclysmic changes in many of our generally accepted perceptions of many things at many levels. I simply present what I think ( at the moment I think it ) knowing full well that it might all change dramatically as new impressions are received inside of myself either by inspiration or by being impressed from influences without. Why be a hypocrite about it?”

… and then there were discouraging things like this:

John, in the original posting:

“I have discovered over the years that (A) It is totally impossible to have a reasonable conversation with most radical Righties, …”

Me, in response:

” …What do you mean by “a reasonable” conversation? Are you referring to some lack of ability in the area of logical analysis? A specific lack of historical knowledge? Certainly you cannot be referring to a reluctance to “respond on point”, since you quite clearly stated that you would not be held to any such a standard yourself …”

John, in reply:

” … And what is my notion of a reasonable conversation? I have no concrete notions of a reasonable conversation because for one thing this blog is not intended to be a conversation or a debate . . it is an “Opinion” blog . . my opinions . . . but maybe a more reasonable “Conversation” in this instance might be condensed as “Thank you for your comments. I always appreciate receiving your comments.” (Evasive enough is it?) :)

 

And so it continued to inexorably and predictably play out.  He would not respond on point because it was an opinion blog, and was his, and he would say whatever he wanted. And while he accused conservatives of making a reasonable exchange impossible,  as we see above, he would not, or could not, say what it was he considered as reasonable.

In some ways he was remarkably like our old friend Perry Hood. Grown up poor. Grateful to the government for lifting him out of poverty; now of a certain age – 76 today apparently;  prone to quoting Christian scriptures for rhetorical purposes while making a certain contempt for Christianity itself quite clear; and, oh yes, like Perry, a one time ardent Pentecostal or Evangelical who now finds the appeal of government love and state organized wealth redistribution more emotionally powerful than a love of God and a commitment to personal charity.

In the new Religion of Progressivism, it is the “rightwads” the “teabaggers”  who are conspiring to storm the heaven known as Washington, D.C.,  and tear down our great country and all the wonderful things which divine liberalism has bestowed upon a yearning humanity. Replacing the devil he once believed to be the source of evil in the world, now stand those evil conservatives and their imagined conspiracies. And don’t try to reason him out of that view. It’s his blog and he feels the way he feels and that is all there is to it. Nothing to discuss, period.

Well, the ending was obviously foreordained.

Seeing that a month of reasoning effort was going just as far as years did with Perry Hood, which is to say absolutely nowhere substantively, I figured I might as well speak directly and let the chips fall where they may. The proximate occasion was John’s post entitled :

I Haven’t Got My Obamacare-Mandated RFID Chip Implant Yet!
Posted on July 8, 2014

DAMN! WHAT’S THE BIG HOLD UP?

He continued in the following manner …

“The Right Wing scum were screaming, yammering, bitching, moaning, crying and howling that every American Citizen was going to be forced to have some kind of microchip implanted under their skin by the year 2013. This mandatory microchip called an RFID chip ( Radio Frequency Identification Chip) is something the Right-Tighters were insisting was absolutely required by The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act ( Obamacare ) and that no American Citizen would be immune from having their government force them to have this device implanted in their skin.

Well the bastards must have either been wrong about the requirement for the implant or the government simply has not yet gotten around to implanting me with my Obamacare-Mandated RFID Chip yet and here it is 2014 ….

Could it be that the Rightscum got this one wrong? …

My desire is that when the Rightwads get their mandatory RFID chip compliments of Obamacare ( As they have been claiming ) they get it up the rear end! To know that little tidbit of knowledge would be intensely pleasing to me as a left of center moderate liberal.”

 

This of course from the man who said : “If you see me engaging in any conversation that seems to you like it might qualify as “Bad Taste” please leave me a comment and alert me to my digression . . . regression. I definitely want to elevate “American Liberal Times” above the level of decency employed by a great number of what I call “Right Wing Hater Blogs …”

Yes well, given that, the following exchange ensued.

Me to John:

DNW on July 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM said:

One of you(r) commenters asks,

*groan* Are they back on that old kick again?’

Apparently “they” ["rightwads", or whatever] , are not.The only source you cite, and from which as cited he/she could have draw such a conclusion, is a four year old, 2010 Snopes article wherein the following is stated:

” First off, the referenced information was not part of the “Obamacare” health care legislation actually enacted by Congress. … the cited wording did not appear in the replacement bill (HR 3590) eventually passed as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, … although similar language was included in initial versions of the subsequent reconciliation bill (HR 4872), it too did not appear in the final version of that bill as passed by Congress.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp#5R6LYeXixaxwE03C.99

So, although the alarm was based on proposed, rather than passed legislation, and the case for alarm overdrawn in addition, the issue of implantable RF chips has been in the news consistently, as has been government mandated individual medical reviews and health data collecting.

In fact, as you will recall, John Edwards stated that as part of his universal heath care program he was in favor of a policy of government mandated annual checkups with individual medical records being accessible by the government.

With fascistic and even apocalyptic sounding policies being noised about by mainstream Democrat candidates like Edwards, it is only expected that the casual reader might react with more alarm than justified.

But of course we are left with the question as to how many modern liberals really would object to such a mandate if it were promulgated? Certainly, numbers of “the Democratic Underground” commentators who discussed this issue, saw no problems with it, if those who were mandated, were on the government insurance plan. ….”

So, in other words, I pointed out that the old Snopes article simply addressed the language that did pass, while offering an interpretation (probably correct) of the language that was omitted.  But that that nonetheless left John’s post as little more than a  vitriolic attack on what looked to be a blatantly resurrected strawman from years past .

John, combatitively responded:

“The reason I published the RFID article was so as to keep the insanity of the right wing conspiracy nuts in front of the voting Public. The voters need to be reminded often of the nutwad mindset of the radical righties and …”

To which I replied:

In other words you dredged up a 4 year old article on an anonymous viral e-mail, not because anyone with a public profile was saying such things, nor because anyone at all was now saying such things, but because you wanted to stir the tar pot and apply the brush, just “… in case somebody who should know better is thinking of believing any of their crap.”

Better take another look at what you are really up to, John.

To which John retorted:

” My job is to expose the lies, deceit and treacheries of the radical right wing wherever I can find them and that is the mission of this blog and that is what I do. The radical right is a cancer eating at all that is decent and good about America and it is on a straightline agenda to destroy the country …”

 

This was going nowhere fast, obviously. And shortly before my remark above, and explicitly adverting to the misunderstandings of the naive or ill informed, I had also written
Ridiculing naive or gullible types for reporting liberals as promoting completely crazy and Nazi-like things, doesn’t work that well when the liberals can actually be shown as saying pretty outlandish and unmistakably fascist things, as was the case with John Edwards.
Left-fascism, that is pan-ethnic social solidarity fascism, has become, I think you will grant, pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party. Though they prefer to refer to it with terms such as “community values”, “solidarity”, and shared individual responsibility.
Actually the impulse dates right back to the beginnings of the social security, “social insurance” movement. Getting people insured was never the only goal: establishing a sense of collective and mutualist identity was right there from the beginning.
It’s always comforting to have neighbors who cannot say no, because the law won’t allow them to. But it isn’t freedom or dignity.
Which provoked the following retort from John as he slammed the barn door closed after the horse had departed:

John on July 8, 2014 at 6:44 PM said: The comparisons of Liberals to fascists and nazis has invoked my Godwin Law response and you can be sure you will not be commenting on this blog again. …” 

It is of course doubtful that an accurate reading of what I had written about “naive or gullible types” reporting liberals as promoting Nazi-like things, actually functions to compare liberals to Nazis.

However, indignant liberals may rest assured that I while I certainly did not myself compare liberals to Nazis, nor all liberals to fascists, I did in fact plainly state that pan-ethnic social solidarity fascism, ” … has become, I think you will grant, pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party.”

And so it indisputably has.

I suppose for those modern liberals of tender feelings, outright saying that left-fascism is pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party is almost as bad as “comparing Liberals” to fascists. LOL

As for John, well, he will go about his life just as before, feeding his spite and the appetite of his readers for venom, by posting multiple vitriolic and accusatory entries daily. Then, gushing out gratitude to the chorus of a couple, while vigilantly defending against “rightwads” who either mock him on their blogs or dare to try and reason with him on his own – by taking an eraser to whatever remarks he can.

And after all, why expect otherwise? Hasn’t he told us plainly that he is not interested in reasoning and has no principles worth discussing? He has indeed. I just could not quite believe he meant it and had to test for myself.

As for me, I will go on my way as well. Having tried one more fruitless time to reason with a self-proclaimed liberal by taking him up on the unsolicited invitation to visit his site which he left as a link after first visiting here, I’ll now go about my business.

Yet, I am still hopeful, if not confident, that there is somewhere a liberal who has not nihilistically abandoned reason for appetite, sentiment, and arbitrary will; a liberal somewhere who can be reasoned with on and about principles. It just happens that John the Liberal, like Perry is not and cannot be made into, such a person. They have both said as much themselves.

God help us if modern liberals really are in fact all intellectually and spiritually reduced to such mindless, vitriol spewing, husks.

Happy 76th birthday, John-the-liberal.

Perhaps someone else will be able to give you the appetite for careful and dispassionate reasoning which you so plainly, and admittedly, and tragically, lack.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Liberal, politics, society | 2 Comments »

The real freedom fighters

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/02

 

The Fourth of July is nearing, and perhaps it’s time to again give a little recognition to that quickly passing generation: those who served in WWII

I’ve already placed some images from my family archive on the Veteran’s Day entry, including an image of my Father manning a Bofors training piece, as well as photos both by, and of, my uncle taken in France and Germany. Fortunately, both my father and my uncle are yet with us, with my father being in remarkably good health.

But I thought that here I’d mention another man of that generation. This one, unrelated to me, but a man whom I was privileged to get to know quite well through business.

His long-time nickname, used even in correspondence and on memos, was “Obie”.  And I assure you that despite his white hair it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Star Wars, but everything to do with his initials.

I won’t give out his last name here. But anyone stumbling across the image further down, and seeming to recognize the older man on the right, while recalling an acquaintance with the Christian name of “Roswell Edison …” would have the identity.

Obie’s been gone over a decade now. And as I think back on it, the image below was probably taken of us not too long before his passing. I think, at his own request.

He was a talented man, who had among his various experiences trained as a fighter pilot during the war [for flying Thunderbolts as I recall], but who was never actually sent into combat due to a declining need for officer pilots overseas.

It was obvious however that his Air Corps pilot qualifying and training experience had had a life-long effect on him. Moreso perhaps than having also gone to college, something that traditionally shapes the young man for the future.

He was disciplined, orderly, assertive and aggressive in a positive sense, and prided himself on his ability to, as they would nowadays say, adapt and overcome. He was also good humored and quick witted, if somewhat wry.

One quirk that he did have was that of good-naturedly “testing” people. That is to say, he presented them with, possibly disquieting, little challenges just in order to judge how they would handle the matter. He attributed the impulse to something originating in his officer candidate training experiences. He said that they would throw little shocks at you so as to determine how well and how maturely you could handle them. I suppose it was to see if you had the right stuff to fly combat.

I, don’t know. Maybe he just liked subtle, slightly provoking jokes.

Eventually, I one day turned to him and said, “Haven’t we known each other for years now?” He acknowledged we had.

“And haven’t you had your “testing” fun repeatedly, and found I’m pretty much unflappable?  After all I know it’s a game.

He acknowledged as much.

“You have yourself referred to me as a good friend, despite our generational differences?”  Yes, that was true too, he admitted.

“So what’s the further point”?

He laughed and acknowledged there was no longer any. And that was that, the end of it.

Some people didn’t take it so well, but hey, that’s life. On the other hand, some did.

One instance of the kind of response I think he was looking for and know he appreciated, occurred during a long drive back to the city wherein we had to pass through some small lakeside resort town about mid-afternoon and late season. Not having had lunch, and with no obvious place to go anywhere in sight, we loosened our ties, left our jackets in the car, and got out at a slightly fru-fru looking deli-and ice cream shop, only to find it manned by a lone high-school aged girl of indomitably cheerful disposition.

Being naturally cheerful himself, Obie wasted no time after placing the carryout order in engaging in what was a transparently fake curmudgeon-like mini-lecture on how he expected the sandwich to be the best he ever had considering the prices and the tony pretensions of the place. She assured him it would be. “Oh yeah, how do you know?”

“Because”, she happily announced while looking right back at him, “I’m making it myself!”

He beamed at her like she was his own granddaughter. “That’s what I’m talking about!” he said, turning to me.

“Yeah, that’s fine but let’s have a little fewer of these demonstrations of how the human spirit can rise to the occasion, eh?”

He was a good citizen. And as well as a long term USAF Reserve or National Guard pilot (I’ve now forgotten which) who enjoyed flying his own private plane, he was a volunteer fireman back when his upscale township was still semi-rural, and a proficient HAM radio operator, who was always ready to assist in emergencies.

He tried to get me interested in “HAM” radio operation.  But even then it was in what I supposed was its waning days; and although a serious involvement probably serves as a practical entre into electronics, I was never able to build up any interest in it.

I always did admire his draughtsmanship though, as he had spent some post-college time on the board before moving on and up. That, skill in technical drawing and lettering, is something CAD and Graphics courses had never given me, much less the subjects of philosophy and the history of law.

Obie was also, and the significance of this trait may at first seem elusive, a good and conscientious record keeper. The point here being the diligence, care, and sense of responsibility he felt for important matters he had been involved in, and toward those who might need to rely on an accurate and truthful record.

This no doubt seems a very small matter and hardly worth mentioning as a character related trait, until one reflects on where we as a nation are when even Federal agencies now “lose” information at their apparent convenience.

It has to do with moral responsibility, you see.

Fighter pilot on the right

The fighter pilot is on the right

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That acceptance of responsibility, and courage and grace in the face of it,  came through clearly as he eventually faced death.

He had been for many years, a smoker, and admitted that it was unwise. But, he stated frankly that it was a powerful habit dating back to his military days, and one which afforded him certain benefits in stressful situations. After getting to know him well,  I suggested – over drinks – that he stop smoking; while making it plain that I would only suggest it to him that once. He candidly, and even vulnerably replied that although he was as I certainly knew, proud of his ability to “handle any situation”, this one, had him more or less licked. To closely paraphrase, he told me, “My daughters have come up to me crying, pleading with me to quit, and I have tried … but it creeps back.”

As this was just about the time our national anti-smoking mania was climbing toward its peak, it’s probably not surprising to hear that once he was discovered with “shadows” or spots on his lungs, and the diagnosis became “terminal without treatment, likely terminal with”, one of his attending physicians, a zealous young man, decided to deliver a priggish little anti-smoking homily, along with the dismal verdict.

I guess the fellow felt morally entitled to righteously rub the dose in. To which performance, Obie, as he told it, responded:  “Stop right there. You’ve delivered the prognosis. You’ve done your duty.  You can go, and save the preaching  for someone else.” [I think upon reflection, that what Obie actually told me was that he got peeved enough with the doctor in his own hospital to use the words "you're dismissed" with him . "I told him, 'You're dismissed" ' .]

At which point, he said, the medical commissar rose in a huff and walked out of the room, never to reappear as one of his attending again.

Obie then, after thinking it over for a bit, decided to forgo any surgical or radiation treatment, in favor of a few palliative measures.

He told me that his age peers among the doctors, informed him after the fact, that that is just what they would have done under the same circumstances. This palliative treatment eventually included the regular draining of fluid build-ups around his lungs. It was a procedure wherein he as patient granted supervised medical trainees permission to work on him as a means of assisting them in the development of their medical skills.  No record exists of what if anything the young medical prig made of this gesture.

He had, as I recall, about seven to ten good months during which he still visited the office, several more of moderate well-being wherein several of us were still able to get together for dinner out, and a couple of more or less house-bound ones that occurred during the course of the year end holidays. After which he passed. I hadn’t seen him since sometime before Thanksgiving, I think.

Obie left behind a well provided for wife, three adult and married daughters, two adult and married sons, some grandchildren, and an enviable record as a citizen and a man.

He represents the kind of men of character America used to produce in abundance. It is for the lack of such men in politics, that this nation and culture suffers as it does today.

 

[Update: Since yesterday and since reentering virtually the same offices and environment in which some of these conversations took place, I've been able to recall more exactly the words and phrasings used in some instances, and have redone them to better, though not perfectly, reflect the actual words used in conversation. I may not be a writer, but I can strive for improved accuracy at least. Also, as usual, I have noticed that I put up what was no better than a draft. Made a couple of changes here and there even adding one telling incident, but I think I'll, again, leave it at that.]

 

Posted in Culture, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Real Life, society | 2 Comments »

America less free? Couldn’t have anything to do with that fascistic Obama Care mandate, could it?

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/02

 

Well, Surprise, surprise!

 

We see the collaborationist media and national socialist Obama supporters struggling to explain why Americans feel less free.

 

Not so free anymore

Not so free any more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” ‘I think this decline is interesting in terms of perception,” says Jon Clifton, managing director of the Gallup World Poll. “Certainly the previous numbers make sense in terms of our classic self-perception. The recent numbers do not.”

One possible explanation for the sharp decline in the US is that Americans have been feeling constrained by the economy since 2006 – and their options have declined in a concrete, material way, Gallup says.

“The decline in perceived freedom among Americans could be attributed to the U.S. economy,” the report says. “Many Americans continue to lack confidence in the country and continue to see it as one of the biggest problems facing the country.”

Still, the report notes, there are some problems with this hypothesis: Self-reported job creation has rebounded, Americans are “feeling better about the economy,” and spending habits in the US are near their pre-recession levels.”

 

“Why?” they ask do Americans feel less free?

It is because those Americans still capable of personal responsibility and the act of self-governance, know that we are.

The individual mandate, aka the “shared individual responsibility provision”, which for the first time in our political history lays an open-ended and uncontingent Federal purchase mandate upon,  and a life energy redistribution claim against the existence of, each and every American, does obviously lessen our historic political and economic right to choose.

It’s the institution of a blatant fascism in America, plain and simple; and the degraded miscreants who support the individual mandate (and its social insurance predicate)  well know it.

So why the pretended mystery? Because to admit the reason would ultimately be to assign moral responsibility – to the very left-fascists of the present Administration and Senate in whose service the collaborationist media have placed themselves.

And if there is one thing moral garbage will not take responsibility for, it is for the consequences of their own life decisions and actions.

And isn’t programmatically avoiding responsibility for self, exactly what constitutes the very essence of modern liberalism?

 

Posted in Character, Culture, media, politically correct, society | Leave a Comment »

Liberalism at its best …

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/30

 

… and most amusing.

I could not believe this when I first saw it in my e-mail, I thought …

Well, wait a second and let me back up.

A few years ago, more than a handful actually, I subscribed to a German news service which was headquartered in D.C.

The reason I did so was because, ironically enough, I wanted to keep abreast of legislation in Europe related to firearms ownership control, and crime trends.

It turned out that although I did receive some useful news links, especially concerning crime and economic trends in Germany, I was able to accomplish much of what I really wanted to do with my own research.

So I cancelled, and after wrangling for some months, eventually managed to put an end to the service.

Imagine my surprise then, when about a year ago I started receiving e-mails from “EIN” ( that was the name of the service) containing links to various news items from around the globe. Well, sort of from around the globe. Many concerned the United States, and I’ll be “doggoned” if the strangest thing hadn’t happened. It seemed almost as if some breathless politically “progressive”  intern from the Huffington (Facebook conversations reflecting community values only please) Post had assumed control over news item selection and captioning.

My routine became, click to open, quick to glance, click to close.

So, anyway today I opened up the latest EIN “World News Monitoring” e-mail , and found that according to EIN News Editors’ Picks for June 27, 2014, Walmart was peddling sniper rifles to all and sundry.

EGAD! SNIPER RIFLES!!!!

EGAD! SNIPER RIFLES!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My goodness! Walmart is selling Barretts? Or at least honest to goodness sniper rifles?

Gee. “How much could I pick one up for?”, I wondered. Or maybe Kathy would get me one and stash it away for Christmas?

No, no. I better get right over there and scoop up mine before the horders arrive!

So I followed the link.

Now, let’s actually  take a look at the “sniper rifle” Walmart is selling,

 

Walmart's .177 pellet gun

Walmart’s .177 pellet gun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A pellet gun! A lousy pellet gun!

This “sniper rifle” turns out to be a pellet gun – a crummy pellet gun. You know, of the same caliber as the standard BB gun, but with a higher velocity, and maybe suitable under some circumstances for dealing with smallish rodents where the law allows. Don’t shoot at that red squirrel if there is a window behind it Johnny!

Perhaps the EIN News writer, knows so little about guns that he or she doesn’t even understand the difference between a BB gun or a pellet gun on the one hand, and what they insinuate is a firearm on the other?

Well maybe. Perhaps the person I early on mocked as an apparently histrionic intern, is in fact British. That might explain it, since the alarmed reaction might then make some sense; since even toy BB or air soft guns are disallowed in that so-called “cradle of liberty”.  As is when you come right down to it, so much else illegal in Great Britain nowadays, such as for example, truly free political speech.

But, you would at least think that someone, other than a transparently lying propagandist, or a timid twenty-something ignoramus from Great Britain, or their American equivalents, would exercise a final editorial supervision over the titling of these links: so as to at least minimize, if nothing else, the ridiculousness of the situation when the redounding stupidity of their presentation became, as it inevitably would, comically apparent to all and tarred the writer with the label “IMBECILE”.

What are these idiots thinking? Oh that’s right. Idiots don’t.

That’s why they are idiots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Culture, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, society | 2 Comments »

We had a liberal visitor …

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/19

 

 

This blog might be said to be  semi-inactive, receiving only modest attention from its authors as we ruminate on subjects of peculiar interest to ourselves, rather than busying ourselves trying to feed the day-to-day social frenzy.

Not infrequently though, an outsider drops by. Surprisingly, a number of them leave off a blogging “like” icon without ever commenting.

The other day, John, of the American Liberal Times, a personal blog of his, and one which is,  shall we say, intensely opinionated, stopped in to read my remarks on the AOL Huffington Post.

That post concerned their Facebook channeling of any commentary on their news articles. This action was supposedly intended to enhance civility, thoughtfulness, and community, by eliminating the option of an even thinly veiled anonymity.

The policy obviously failed in accomplishing the first two supposed aims, but succeeded in ending the use of screen names or e-mail names as commenting identities. Whether it “enhanced community” as a result of eliminating the comments of conservatives who preferred not to take the first step in making their home addresses available to politically correct activists and picketers, is probably a matter of opinion.

The Huffington Post’s action certainly does seem to have cleansed the comment section of much conservative opinion, even if it did nothing to elevate the tone or improve the quality of the comments. Whether that constitutes an improvement in “the community” is as I just stated probably a matter of opinion.

Now, John of the American Liberal Times, remarked that he agreed – sort of – with the thrust of our post. At least he agreed that it was unwise to hand out much personal information on the Internet.  And he also left us a link to his own site.

So I visited him; and just in time to see him posting notice that he was turning over a new leaf himself “tonewise”,  and that he had thought better of his former practice of giving free rein to invective and vitriol.

I commended him for this, and left some other remarks.

John was gracious and profuse in his thanks for my visit, and by way of leaving comments on my comments, precipitated something of an exchange.

Throughout it all John was reserved, moderate, and polite; always thanking me for my visits and contribution.

After concluding our series of exchanges, I then decided to go back and take a look at where it had all led us. And I am afraid that the results have pretty much matched past patterns of such exchanges; especially the pattern that seemed to develop in my exchanges with Perry, a significant difference being that John had not descended to the level of making personal accusations of treason, or hardheartedness, or that of libertarians’ having a genetic tendency toward Neanderthal-like behavior.

But what was virtually identical was the manner in which the exchanges “evolved”. Those who recall my observations regarding the lack of an “on point” quality in my exchanges with Perry or the Iowa Libs, and how the logic of the arguments as developed in the thread were consistently sidestepped will … well you can take a look if you are interested, and judge for yourself.

Unfortunately, it may be that we are ultimately fated to largely talk past one another.

 

http://americanliberaltimes.com/2014/06/18/the-neocons-should-not-be-pontificating-about-iraq/

 

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Liberal, politics | 1 Comment »

Now, it’s “Facebook Conversations”

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/17

 

As is by now well-known, AOL/Huffington Post has been seeking to, as they say, increase the level of civility and elevate the tenor of the conversations in their news comment sections by eliminating anonymity.

Their first attempts seemed aimed at reducing the number of made up names and identities while still allowing the use of AOL account screen names or identities. Now, at least for the most part it seems, you must register through Facebook.

Not only will you have a properly registered and consistent and therefore potentially held-to-account commenting identity (all well and good), but now it will be your real life name and address, and whatever else in the way of personal information a deranged leftist might be able to ferret out.

So how is this working out for them, “Tone-wise?”

A sample provides some indications …

The “news” …

Huffington's mutual grooming crew

Huffington’s mutual grooming troupe thrown fodder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next comes the progressive Facebook echo chamber.

What passes for elevated discourse among progressives

What passes for elevated discourse among progressives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free speech? Well, The Huffington Post is their playground and they are welcome to it. But don’t let anyone tell you that the marketplace of ideas is anything they have ever had an interest in.

 

Posted in Liberal, media, politics, society | 4 Comments »

Informal fallacies?

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/02

Strange how the obvious and already known sometimes hits you right between the eyes with a clarity and force originally lacking, or at least not remembered as there, much, much after the fact.

Say, oh, about thirty-plus years after the fact.

I was driving in the car a day or so ago, and for some reason the concept of “informal fallacies” popped into my head, along with an annoyed internal dialog relating to how the concept had expanded, seemingly exponentially, since I was back in school studying logic and rhetoric.

It seems there is a fallacy for every occasion nowadays, and that they have multiplied as fast as do the political polemicists who frantically brandish them about as if their mere mention constituted evidence of intellectual credentials.

Courtier’s reply! Au contraire, No true Scotsman! No! Argument from authority! Blah blah blah

Irving Copi, a genuine expert in affairs logical, in his famous and widely used university level “Introduction to Logic”, usefully observes (after paragraphs of provisional comments) that, “We may divide informal fallacies into fallacies of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity”

This scope obviously has something to do, as he states the issue, ” … with errors in reasoning into which we may fall either because of carelessness and inattention to our subject matter or through being misled by some ambiguity in the language used to formulate our argument.”

It seems to me that one of the main problems with those who like to bandy charges of fallacious reasoning about, is that they often seem not to understand the supposed issue involved in the fallacy itself.

For example, what some people imagine they have in mind when they charge others with an “appeal to authority”, mystifies me. There is nothing wrong with citing, or appealing to a legitimate authority regarding his area of expertise.

A classic and extreme illustration of the real “fallacy” was provided by old cigarettes ads featuring Hollywood or sports figures who were pictured extolling the virtues certain brands for their power to relax and energize without impairing endurance or health.

On the other hand it’s no error in argument, as Copi notes, to cite, say, a recognized authority on Medieval history on some point of common law bearing on our own times.

But I digress into the morass of the fallaciously polemical use of fallacies.

The point being here, that informal fallacies however they are to be construed, are just that: “not-formal” in the sense of “not a violation of form”. They don’t even rise to that level of error.

They are informal not because of some casualness – though this is often a condition of their appearance – but because they are not the end-product violation of a valid deductive argument form.

They, informal fallacies, thus constitute errors in reasoning which unlike formal fallacies, are not the result of errors which violate as Copi says, “valid patterns of inference”. (Of course these valid patterns themselves  only guarantee that the conclusion asserted validly follows from the premisses when the rules are followed; but not that the conclusion is sound in and of itself, nor that the argument “true” in the way we usually think of truth as reflecting our experienced reality.)

But with the general move away from deductive reasoning as a means of convincing political opponents to yield ground, it’s not surprising that the list of informal fallacies has mushroomed.

Those persons who would not know a modus ponens from a modus tollens, and would probably have a problem intellectually grasping their significance if confronted with the same, can nonetheless muster the resources to shout “NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY!” at an opponent on the vaguest suspicions of a “violation”, and most inchoate conception of the idea defining the fallacy itself.

There is something nonetheless kind of interesting about some of the “newer” fallacies. And that is that they don’t fit neatly into errors of relevance or ambiguity or even internal or extrapolative construction as with the fallacy of composition; but rather, seem to be laid against claims of intellectual privilege,  definition, and framing: More as if they are describing rhetorical gambits than strict errors of reasoning or inference.

But then I make no claims of expertise in this area and am just recounting some things that crossed my mind the other day as I was driving.

 

Posted in Philosophy, society, truth | Tagged: , | 8 Comments »

Emotions as knowledge?

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/29

 

Or is it emotions, i.e., feelings, as “the only certain knowledge”?

This post is not an argument in favor of “emotional knowledge” whatever that might be taken to mean. Nor is it about some theory of psychological health, involving the integration of all aspects of the human personality.

Instead, it is a momentary reflection on the degrading effects of skepticism, both moral and perhaps epistemological as well, on the ability of the convinced skeptic – if such a term is permissible – to actually engage in moral argument.

This was brought forcefully to mind by a YouTube video posted by Yorkshire on First Street Journal.

In this video we see a youthful British woman clad in sandals and a baggy red shift-like garment reaching to well below the knees, bemoaning the manner in which radical Moslems now inhabiting her old Luton neighborhood are protesting the arrest of the wife of Moslem who had set off a bomb in Stockholm.

What seems to really upset the British girl is the Moslem vitriol; their loudly antagonistic, hateful, and contemptuously hostile way of expressing themselves with respect to the institutions of both the culture and the country which has harbored and sheltered, and if news reports are right, often literally housed and fed them.

She seems especially disturbed by the marchers’ chant that the British police should burn in hell.

Attempting to engage one contemptuous burka clad protester in conversation, she’s informed that she looks naked; and is asked if she is trying to seduce.

Put on some clothes

Put on some clothes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She is told to “Go and put on some clothes”.

She becomes indignant, sputtering, “How you chose to dress like that, I chose to dress like this”.

The British woman then protests that her female critic is “judging” her.

The female marcher cheerfully admits that she is indeed judging the indignant and whiny western woman.

The westerner babbles that she should not be judged because she is not judging the Moslem woman; just as if the Moslem woman actually believed that she and the western woman were moral peers inhabiting the same moral plane.

“I don’t judge you, because I’m above that” says the western woman, while flailing her arms about for emphasis.

“Don’t you dare speak to me like that.” she rails.  ‘This is my hometown as well”:  again, implicitly referring to a moral framework based on respect for persons – even the stupid, weak, and misguided – which assumes a vision of living space and power “sharing”,  at which the Moslems marchers obviously sneer.

The now emotionally wounded westerner continues her own feelings-jihad with, “I try my hardest to sympathize with people who may be different to me, and it’s this tiny minority …”

Ah yes, dear, please say again for the cameras how broadminded and accepting you are. I am sure that that will make the desired impression on the marchers. Once they are sure, you know, that you mean no harm and will respect them.

Hoping then to score rhetorical points along this line by appealing to a male marcher with the concept of “fairness”, she is informed in short order that it is indeed OK to shout that British police should burn in hell.  Because you see, Britain has free speech. And further, in response to your question dear lady as to whether Koran-observant Moslems ought to respect the laws of the country that hosts them?

Well, the answer is, “No”.

Eventually, she encounters some scholar type who informs her Koranic-like chapter and verse that Moslems need not observe non-Moslem law in their host countries, and, that she is going to hell to boot.

She responds with, “It hurts me to think that you think that of me because you don’t really know me …” As if that would make a difference.

To which the scholar-type replies that he knows quite enough. He knows she is not a Moslem.

Well, she tried to be understanding and fair and considerate of everyone’s feelings. What else is there to say?

A little, apparently.

She sets the tone of the wrap-up of her video adventure with a voice-over wherein she announces she, “finds it sad that anyone would preach such a damning message”.

Then, tremulously facing the camera: “To sum up in words to tell you how I’m feeling now …  I feel … gutted, completely gutted that this is happening ….”

Words failing her she goes silent; and saying no more, turns her head away from camera and toward the protesters.

A pause …. to let the profundity of the feelings sink in ….

Feelings … hurt … feelings … are her frame of reference. Along with mutual sympathy and respect for all differences; emphasizing the notion of a tolerant and accepting  “fairness” among presumed “equals”.

But she is obviously not their equal. Not in physical fact clearly, and not according to the moral theory they announce.

And what does she have in her ideological armamentarium with which to respond to them?

Feelings. She has feelings. And she wants to tell you about her feelings and how hurtful you are being to them.

I guess she imagines the Moslems must care about her feelings. Or that they should care. It is almost as if she sees her feelings as some great scale by which moral principles ought to be weighed and evaluated.

But the Moslem marchers obviously don’t care. And I don’t see how they could care, given her pathetic intellectual performance. I certainly don’t care, and like her, I am a westerner myself.

Western culture, the postmodernist, modern liberal portion of it, is not only skeptical of religious dogmatism, it is skeptical (and increasingly outright nihilistic) regarding moral knowledge in general, and quite often about the possibility of solid or enduring knowledge concerning reality itself.

Positive, empirical science, the one practice that is still thought by some of this ideological stripe to yield what can be called certain knowledge, is held by these same persons to be value free, and incapable of yielding any “is” information, which leads to “ought” conclusions.

When it comes to moral questions then, all this kind of person can do when confronted by other some person having dogmatic and insistent views is, just as C.S. Lewis and others before him long ago observed,  to remark on the state of their feelings.

Of course “way back when”, when Lewis laid out the implications of such relativism and skepticism, and then described its inevitably hapless and pathetic end-point, his reductio ad absurdum depiction had a certain flavor of the comically ironic about it. Certainly, and whatever their 20th century progressive opinion leader rhetoric, no broad segment of any society would actually embrace skepticism and relativism to a point wherein they would wind up quite so stupid and hapless in the face of a strident and mocking challenge to their assumed “values”, as we saw here?

Well, with enough propagandizing social affirmation and encouragement, they obviously can.

What then, Lewis and others presented as a warning via their careful exercises in hypothetical logic, and the inevitable conclusions of their chains of reasoning, this young woman is now living out in fact.

She embraced the skeptical milquetoast meta-values presented to her. She internalized them. She then lived comfortably among similar enabling others who had no motivation to rock or test their relativist boat,  exposing its virtually non-existent freeboard, and lack of seaworthiness.

Now however, she confronts hostile and vehement others who, in an act of modern values sacrilege, sneer at her feelings and test her values with their life and death commitments.

And all she can do is announce to the world how THAT makes her feel; and theatrically shake her head with sadness as a means of trying to elevate herself  to her lost honor and dignity. After all, she’s “above that” other stuff.

Yes … I guess she is. Just as long as those vestiges of western moral ideals more potent than the relativism and skepticism and values emotivism which she represents and lives out, continue to hold the moral barbarians somewhat at bay.

 

[Update note. I've made some wording changes in the first 2/3rds "narrative portion" of the post. Changing word order, tightening up slightly, checking punctuation and coherence, and doing the things real bloggers do when they write a draft before posting.  The more analytical remarks about postmodern culture are unchanged.]

 

 

Posted in Culture, Islam, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Religion, society, terrorists, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 209 other followers

%d bloggers like this: