Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Author Archive

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 »

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 »

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 »

Enemy Aliens

Posted by DNW on 2014/02/26

This is a link to a comment wherein I harp a familiar chord, in somewhat more conclusive and less contingent and ironic terms than usual.

The original posting concerns the little North Korean tyrant. The mention of which, leads us to ask “Why is he still in power?”  A question to which we know the multifaceted answer. One critical facet being that North Koreans, or Koreans of any kind, are not the right kind of victim group for American political “progressives” to exploit on their own incoherently planned and socially totalitarian journey to nowhere.

Consider seriously: When we take what political progressives say about reality and human existence seriously, and then mercilessly apply those principles in axiomatic fashion to them; what in the final reduction do we find ourselves confronting?

What, when observed under the aspect of his own definitions, is the political progressive?

 

 

Update: Eric believes I’m fretting the fabric of progressive life needlessly.  He may have a point.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Liberal, politics, Socialists, society, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Lena Dunham photoshop charges

Posted by DNW on 2014/02/18

 

“Make sure your first time is with Obama” girl, Lena Dunham, has been taking flack according to various news reports – which we have unsuccessfully tried to avoid – for a series of photographs appearing in some magazine or other, and which some people have claimed were adjusted in order to make her look … well, less like herself.

Now, it’s probably a fair point to say that none of us here have ever seen Ms Dunham in action anywhere other than in that contemptible Obama endorsement.

Nonetheless, most news readers do probably more or less know who she is; i.e., “That neurotic Democrat chick who parlayed a persona built on a facade of studied vulnerability overlying an innate obnoxiousness, into a career.”

Anyway, we won’t settle that issue now.

We merely reproduce here an image capture, so that readers may draw their own conclusions concerning the Photoshopping controversy.

Liberal Democrat female trying to look attractive? Photoshopped or not?

malicious accusation made concerning photographic manipulation

malicious accusation made concerning photographic manipulation

Posted in Humor - For Some, Liberal, media, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Solopower

Posted by DNW on 2014/02/12

The saga continues, as they say:

 

REUTERS, September 24, 2012:

SoloPower Funding: U.S. Poised To Hand Over $197 Million To Another Solar Panel Start-Up

LOS ANGELES, Sept 24 (Reuters) – A tiny solar company named SoloPower will flip the switch on production at a U.S. factory Thursday, a major step toward allowing it to tap a $197 million government loan guarantee awarded under the same controversial program that supported failed panel maker Solyndra.

SoloPower has initiated a strategy to differentiate it from struggling commodity players in the solar panel industry. Still, there are several similarities between SoloPower and Solyndra – which became a lightning rod in the U.S. Presidential campaign this year after taking in more than $500 million in government loans and then filing for bankruptcy.

Like Solyndra, SoloPower is a Silicon Valley start-up and uses the same non-traditional raw material in its solar panels. And, like its now-defunct peer, SoloPower is one of just four U.S. panel manufacturers to clinch loan guarantees under the Department of Energy’s $35 billion program to support emerging clean energy technologies. The DOE payments to SoloPower will come on top of the $56.5 million SoloPower has collected in loans, tax credits and incentives from the state of Oregon and the city of Portland, where its first factory will be located.

 

THE OREGONIAN, April 22, 2013:

SoloPower, the startup pitched as the most innovative player in Oregon solar manufacturing, will suspend its Portland operations in June and gut its remaining workforce.

 

It’s unclear whether production will ever start back up, or whether the state will recoup millions of dollars in incentives meant to fuel the company’s growth and create hundreds of well-paying jobs.

 

The development apparently came as a surprise Monday to the two state agencies charged with tracking its performance.

 

 

THE OREGONIAN, Jan 30th 2014:

SoloPower Systems, with cash infusion, faces Feb. 1 deadline to make state loan payment

Long-idled Portland manufacturer SoloPower Systems Inc. says it has lined up bridge financing as executives work to turn the power back on at its solar-panel factory.

State officials say, however, that they still don’t anticipate the company will make a $119,000 payment due next week on its $10 million loan.

SoloPower made the announcement Wednesday in a statement posted to its website. Chief executive Rob Campbell described the funding as “a runway to finalize our longer-term financing plans.”

The company offered few other details, such as the size of the investment, or the timing of any larger deal needed to ramp up operations.

A message left at a number listed for SoloPower has not been returned.

The spokesperson originally named on the press release said his public relations agency has not worked with SoloPower for a year.

Executives had been seeking upwards of $50 million to resume manufacturing at the factory, which has largely been idled since June. As recently as last week, the parking lot at the company’s North Marine Drive headquarters and factory was empty.

SoloPower restructured its operations in July after striking an agreement among its top private investors and the state, which has backed the company with $30 million in loans and tax credits. Under the restructuring deal, SoloPower received a much more flexible timeline to meet the production and hiring benchmarks required by the state.

The Oregon Department of Energy also agreed to delay payments on a $10 million loan partially backed by the City of Portland.

 

PV TECH, February 7 2014

Solopower claims new finance could re-open shuttered thin-film factory

Solopower is confident it will be able to resume manufacturing soon. Source: Solopower.

 

Thin-film manufacturer Solopower has announced that it is close to reopening its factory in Portland, Oregon.

 

The firm claims to be finalising an agreement with new investors that will allow it to re-staff the facility that has remained largely idle since last year. It has arranged a round of interim financing as the first stage of that process.

 

“This bridge financing provides us with the runway to finalise our longer-term financing plans,” said Rob Campbell, president, Solopower Systems in an official statement. “Our proprietary Solopower technology and lightweight flexible PV CIGS products serve many new and underserved markets, from which we continue to receive very strong interest.”

 

“We’re excited that this latest show of commitment from our investors will enable the large volume production needed to satisfy pending orders from Europe, MENA, the Americas and Australasia,” he added.

 

Earlier this week a deadline passed on a debt owed to Oregon’s department of energy. It was unclear whether the remaining sum, in excess of US$100,000, had been paid within the five day grace period that followed the 1 February deadline.

 

 

Meanwhile in California, a short notice sale of a “110,000 SqFt Thin Film Solar Manufacturing Plant

 

2009-2011 Thin Film Manufacturing Facility Featuring: BoostSolar Laminating Line, Jeol SEM & Polisher, (2) Smit Reactor Furnaces, (3) Ixmation Interconnect Lines, Dalux Auto Web, Slitting, Screen Printing, Water System, Support Equipment, Lab and Plant Support.

 

 

Sale Type

Online Auction

Sale Location

5981 Optical Ct.
San Jose, CA 95138
Map/Directions

Currency

USD

Online Bidding

Date & Time

Start: Mon. 02/17/2014 10:00am (PST)

Closing: Wed. 02/19/2014 10:00am (PST)

Inspection/Preview

Mon. 02/17 & Tue. 02/18 (9am – 4pm)

Contact: tracym@newmillcapital.com

Buyers Premium

Buyers Premium of 15% on all items with an additional 3% Bidspotter fee.

 

 

Featured Items

  • SHORT NOTICE AUCTION – Equipment 2009 – 2011

  • OVER 500 LOTS

  • Equipment List Posted – Complete Lot List to Be Posted – 2/12

  • Assets Cleared for Removal by Clean Harbors

  • BoostSolar 96″ Lamination Line

  • Jeol JSM-7600F Field Emission SEM

  • Jeol IB-09010CP Polisher

  • (3) Ixmation Interconnect Systems

  • (2) Smit Ovens Narrow Selenization Reactor Furnaces

  • Dalux 15-Heat Zone Autoweb

  • (2) Mustang Single Chamber Web Coating Systems

  • Automatic Screen Printing

  • GE Osmonics 3-Barrel RO System

  • Aquafine Water Treatment System – DI/UV

  • Slitting & Rewind

  • Varian Bell Reactor

  • CalWeld Post Chamber

  • Glenmarc Portionator Despensebot & Applicator

  • Hi Pot Testers & Testing Tables

  • Sub Zero Environmental Chambers

  • Labconco Hoods & Lab Cabinets with Flammable Storage Bases

  • Large Qty Solar Panel Manufacturing Material, Electronics & Wiring

  • Lab Equipment, Plant and Process Support

 

 

 

Posted in Environmentalism, politics, Used To Be Cheap Energy | 7 Comments »

Castro outlives Seeger

Posted by DNW on 2014/01/28

 

Notorious American Stalinist asswipe and banjo player Pete Seeger, has reportedly predeceased Stalinist Dictator Fidel Castro; for those of you who may have been taking bets, or may care in any way.

Pete Seeger in style

Pete Seeger in style

Not Pete Seeger

Not Pete Seeger

something in the water apparently

something in the water apparently

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among those relative few who might care, are people who liked or were emotionally linked to, the so-called folk music movement of the 1930s to 1960′s.

Seeger’s father Charles, was a musicologist who developed an interest in using folk music as a vehicle for social protest movements. He, Charles, held a position as, ” … Deputy Director of the Federal Music Project, part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) …”  [Routledge History of Social Protest in Popular Music, note 21 page 43 - from Internet]

Hey thanks FDR. Harry Hopkins, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss … a real string of government funded New Deal hits there if you know what I mean.

Anyway, this led to the father introducing the son to some opportunities.

According to an interview with Seeger posted on http://www.marist.edu, where Seeger served as a Summer Scholar in 1996, the Great Depression hit his family hard …
He received a scholarship to Harvard and, according to the Harvard University Gazette, entered in 1936 and studied sociology. He helped run, drew cartoons and wrote stories for the Harvard Progressive, a monthly publication. He left the school in 1938 without graduating. …
…  in 1935, Charles Seeger [Pete Seeger's father] took a job in Washington, D.C., in the music division of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration. While there, Charles Seeger met Alan Lomax, who with his father, John Lomax, helped develop the Library of Congress’ Archive of American Folk Song.
Charles Seeger put his son in touch with Alan Lomax and the rest is, literally, history.”

 

As “Homer Simpson Goes to Washington” puts it,

Charles Seeger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/homer-simpson-goes-to-washington-joseph-j-foy/1101164733?ean=9780813138916

 

What followed The Guardian states, was that:

Seeger made his first recordings in New York in 1940 with the Almanac Singers musical collective. The album Talking Union (1941-42) was adopted by American labour activists for generations, and the group, which was soon joined by the folk singer Woodie Guthrie, also recorded anti-war ballads, which proved embarrassing when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and the American left became ferociously patriotic.”

 

Pete Seeger died at ninety four years old, while still a lousy communist. A fraud, singing of freedom while an ideological enemy of it.  Some people, just never learn. Maybe they can’t.

Posted in politics, Socialists | Leave a Comment »

The Perfect Martini

Posted by DNW on 2014/01/22

 

Anyone who has drunk, or imbibed since we don’t want to sound as if we are alluding to intoxication, a sufficient number of martinis to use the term “perfect martini” also knows that there is really no such thing as a perfect martini. Even martinis made to your favorite recipe will obviously vary to some significant degree with the care which one takes – or doesn’t – in making (proportioning) the drink and with the particular brands of ingredients used.

That rocks glass in your hand on the patio in July, the glass sloshingly filled with cubes and gin and vermouth and a couple of olives, and which you hold in the one hand as you flip steaks on the grill with the other, holds the same nominal drink as that carefully proportioned vodka and vermouth mix poured from a shaker into a coupe glass, and then garnished with a twist of lemon zest.

In the name of decency, there are some limits though.

For example, although either gin or vodka (or both together, Mr. Bond) may be used or substituted, most people would agree that no matter how stingy the application may be,  a “martini” made without any vermouth is just not really a martini as most of us understand it.

Not so much vermouth!

Not so much vermouth!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of vermouth, many of us, myself for instance, had become comfortably accustomed to Noilly Prat only to discover a couple of years ago that something awful had happened. I first though I had gotten a bad bottle. Instead of the usual clear liquid I was used to seeing, out came a yellow-greenish fluid with a more pronounced taste, smell, and what seemed to me to be oily character. It tasted like the abominable Gallo vermouth. It made my martini undrinkable. Until recently I could not come up with a satisfactory explanation as to what went wrong. Abandoning my theory of a heat spoiled bottle at the second disappointment, I figured my memory of what I like must have been off … very off somehow.

Turns out that the company had been bought out, and the new ownership of Noilly Prat decided that Americans would henceforth receive the European version of their “dry” vermouth; which was distinctly heavier in scent and taste than that to which we were accustomed. Apparently Noilly had for some years, and long before I ever approached a martini glass, been offering a specially dry version for the North American market. After grimacing my way through those last unwitting purchases of the Euro-style and highly scented version of their “dry”, I dropped any pretense of brand loyalty and grabbed a bottle of Martini & Rossi off the shelf the next time out. According to the blog “The Gray Report” (and Gray himself actually prefers the Euro-version), many others did as well. I certainly hated it. Enough people agreed with me implies Gray, to cause sales to plummet sufficient to get management’s attention and to promise to bring back the American version to this market.

So far, I haven’t seen it. Though I can’t say I have looked very hard.

As far as the mix portions go, I for one, have over the years developed a preference for what some web sites, Vermouth101.c0m for instance, are calling a 1950′s mix … basically 3 measures of gin or vodka to one half measure (I’m not using the technical term for “measure” here) of dry vermouth. So for example, a measure might be one of those ounce-and-a-half shot glasses. Then, three full shot glasses of gin, and one half of that ounce and a half shot glass, of vermouth.

You will notice too that as Mr. Niven above protectively recoils from that bottle of vermouth proffered by the cheerfully smiling pixie, he is simultaneously cradling an almost fishbowl sized snifter, which he’s using as the martini mixing glass.

He obviously wants his martini as dry as possible. And I agree to some extent as I mentioned just above.

But I would not go so far as the version of martini supposedly liked best when I first started drinking them during that late 1980s and 1990′s era sometimes credited with the return of the cocktail to prominence. That version, was reportedly almost pure gin or vodka, and I found it as objectionable to my palate as the early 20th century version said to be preferred by FDR: a two gin to one vermouth mix with plenty of brine added. I tried it. Yech. No wonder FDR had a stroke.

Well, no accounting for the taste of certain statist liberals who smoke cigarettes from holders.

We’ve already addressed what are from my point of view the preferable proportions of the two main ingredients in the mix. How they are mixed together is another matter.

The phrase “shaken not stirred” has become a painful cliche that causes me to actually wince when hearing it. But, that doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer the drink mixed that way. In fact, while doing research – well, while idly scanning various books and other websites for confirmation of my own prejudices – I read that martinis were originally meant to be made that way: shaken.

By the time the James Bond novel Casino Royale was published for Ian Fleming in 1953, in the very year Mr. Niven was saving his bowl of gin in “The Moon is Blue” from the debasement of too much, or almost any vermouth, the mixing process seems to have changed from shaking to stirring. Or at least swirling the mix with cubes.

Which leads us to another painful cliche: one which expresses alarm over the possibility of “bruising the gin”.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, so I can’t explain it to you. And when I hear it, I can only picture some dissipated country club type given to the pointless regurgitation of current mythologies as a way of cementing his image as one who is in need of constantly cementing his image. Out of respect to our early 1950s motif here, I’ll include an image of just that type of fellow as portrayed by actor Louis Calhern, in yet another William Holden movie of that same era, “Executive Suite”.

Better not be bruised!

Better not be bruised!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any event, I not only have a fictional spy on my shaken side, I apparently have the British medical establishment. You may be thinking I am referring to a recent series of articles based on the premise that James Bond liked his martinis shaken and not stirred because had he been a real person who drank as much as seemingly recorded in the spy novels he, would have had a case of the shakes which made stirring impossible … or something like that.

However, that particular bit of politically motivated kill-joy posturing by the PC crowd is not what I am referring to. What I am citing here is an article in the British Journal of Medicine titled “Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis”.

Shaken martinis were more effective in deactivating hydrogen peroxide than the stirred variety, and both were more effective than gin or vermouth alone (0.072% of peroxide control for shaken martini, 0.157% for stirred v 58.3% for gin and 1.90% for vermouth). The reason for this is not clear, but it may well not involve the facile oxidation of reactive martini components: control martinis through which either oxygen or nitrogen was bubbled did not differ in their ability to deactivate hydrogen peroxide (0.061% v 0.057%) and did not differ from the shaken martini. Moreover, preliminary experiments indicate that martinis are less well endowed with polyphenols than Sauvignon white wine or Scotch whisky (0.056 mmol/l (catechin equivalents) shaken, 0.060 mmol/l stirred v 0.592 mmol/l wine, 0.575 mmol/l whisky).

 

With authorities like that behind you, who needs some comic book spy on your side?

How’s it to be served then?  In what kind of glass? A “martini glass” obviously?

Well, there are different theories. I always specified a rocks glass in restaurants. Occasionally a self-confident middle aged waiter in the tonier kind place would good naturedly admonish me with an “Oh sir! Not really!” and I’d give in and have it in a stemmed glass. I’ve kind of gotten used to them by now. The design is supposed to have a certain logic, and I admit that the drink may taste somewhat better in one. Or at least more like an aperitif to be savored, than a concoction to be guzzled.

Still, I like a squat tumbler  in some situations. Summer evening grilling is good time to load up with ice, in my opinion; and a double old fashioned glass works really well for that.

But the classic martini glass is making a bit of comeback without any assistance from me. That is to say, when I say “classic”, a sub 7 ounce capacity glass with a short pulled stem, rather than one of those 12 ounce glass funnels ill balanced on a 6 inch pillar, which has been the popular version for the last 30 or so years.

As an admirable return to basics, take this well proportioned glass sold this Christmas season as an example. Not a pulled stem coupe with that little extra cusp in the bottom (that is to say not one obviously shaped like a mold of Marie Antoinette’s left you know what …) it’s nonetheless pretty appealing all the same.

Short stemmed, made in Poland, and called "True martini" glass

Short stemmed, made in Poland, and called “True martini” glass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, you can still get the champagne coupe/cocktail glasses common in the early 60′s as well. From Germany, just for you: at two for sixty or seventy dollars a pair.

Coupe type glass

Coupe type glass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what’s the perfect martini? I don’t know really, and haven’t the authority to say. Make it 6 to one.  Vodka or gin depending on mood. Rocks or Martini glass depending. Two cubes with the former, or just a bit of cracked ice in the latter.  Mix shaken, well, with ice. Poured over a stuffed olive, and a twist of zest added last. Let sit about a minute. Then …

That’s perfect enough for me.

You, are entitled to your own opinion of course.

 

A satisfied customer

A satisfied customer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, education, Entertainment, history, Philosophy, Science in the news | 2 Comments »

Castro

Posted by DNW on 2014/01/15

I was going to title this “Castro on the Brink of Hell”.

But most Christians, especially those visiting this site would probably blanch at that,  and feel that it was a call far beyond my right to make. Not only being presumptuous in the very making, but a call, if there were such a fate possible, too terrible to smirk over.

Yet, one cannot help but wonder what kind of cosmic justice would be served by granting these post-human, anti-human, morally deconstructed and murderous entities of the left, mercy.

But we balk. This limit on how far we are willing to go, is where the leftist appetite thing, the collectivist seeker of power over other men, has what appears to be a Darwinian at least, advantage over those humans who do recognize moral and ethical boundaries, and who try to deduce behavioral standards from principles that extend beyond their own brute impulses.

The left’s power and their seeming advantage lies in their liberation from all ethical and moral standards. But of course, this may well entail their journey beyond what it even means to be human.

But, whatever their lack of moral inhibitions may do for them now, one limit these human demons, these tyrants of left cannot evade, is time.

Think of Castro alive forever, and you have some reasonable facsimile of hell on earth; that is to say, of the leftist mind and personality poured out upon, and dominating everyone with its endlessly fulminating nihilism and resentments.

Here is one of them with whom time has caught up. The God of Progressive Hollywood.

CUBA-POLITICS-CASTRO-ART

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How much longer shall he reign?

They must be thanking the powers they revere that they still have Obama.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, humor, politics, Socialists | 6 Comments »

It might as well be spring

Posted by DNW on 2013/12/27

Well, for one day at least.

One warm day

One warm day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We’ve had so much subarctic jet stream air for weeks and weeks that a day’s break will no doubt be appreciated, and if realized, quite possibly feel like spring.

If you get a break, enjoy it.

 

 

Guitarists might want to start paying close attention at about 2:10.

Posted in Global Warming | 2 Comments »

Merry Christmas

Posted by DNW on 2013/12/23

 

 

 

Ornament

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Cathedral of San Juan

Posted by DNW on 2013/12/12

We spit in your Christian face

We spit in your Christian face

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve not thoroughly investigated this for the back story, but rather stumbled across it while dealing with another matter.

The proximate source for this was the always provocative Michael Voris of the Catholic site “Church Militant TV”, though it’s been floating around the Internet for almost a month now.

I first came across Voris himself when a militant atheist troll dedicated to disrupting philosopher Professor Edward Feser’s moderate realist oriented blog (Feser is himself a Catholic) , mockingly inserted a link to a Voris polemic as an example of a “Real Catholic”.

The mockery might have backfired on him since although no one could call me a “Catholic in Good Standing” I found Voris’ observations and plain spoken manner of argumentation almost always entertaining, and quite often acute.

Voris’ point was that the people in what he calls the Catholic “Church of Nice” consistently underestimate the vehemence of the anti-Christians.

And I must say, that this event certainly comes as a shock to me. I cannot imagine how it did not break out into violence. Someone spray paint into my face and I would probably kill them in instant retaliation. But then these young men, praying the rosary around the church they were protecting, come from both a different culture, a different religion, and a different spiritual sensibility, than I do.

I’m mortified at what they have endured, but for some reason not contemptuous of them as I would be for those who otherwise passively submit to assault, when they need not endure it.

http://gloria.tv/?mediafile=unEJHL1xyfbGAHeJylpaG

From YouTube

 

I don’t know what is going on here. But I have never seen anything like it before.

Posted in Christianity, Gender Issues, Insanity, politics, Religion, society, Uncategorized, Youth | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: