When He's Right, He's Right

Lawrence Auster: The federal government is waging war on America: do we ignore that fact and continue playing by the rules?

But! It's 'For The Children!'

"Better get a paper route, Billy!"

Barney Frank and the Discount Fairy

The Discount Fairy is the older sister of the Credit Fairy. Apparently, she's the much older sister.

And, apparently, she doesn't visit Barney Frank's house.

It's just too bad, don't you think, that Barney Frank can't see his way clear to be as tight with your money and mine?

Still Hyperventilating

The media are still hyperventilating about the BP Gulf oil spill ... even as they report the truth that it wasn't the end of the world, after all.

Back in June, Mike Flynn asked: "Why does he media call it the worst oil spill in US history... "

... instead of the second worst in the history of the Gulf?

Perhaps because then people would wonder what happened during and after that earlier spill: Ixtoc 1, drilled by Pemex, and gain a bit of sanity and a sense of perspective. But we live in a world ruled by lawyers, not by engineers. (And no, I am not saying that the opposite would not have its own blind spots and sillinesses. Engineers, for example, are inclined to think that all problems are solvable.)

I considered linking to this at the time. Please, read the news item discussing the (1979) Ixtoc oil spill in the context of the 2010 BP oil spill.

Now, read (and watch) this June 26 ABC report ... in which they state that it's already becoming difficult to find oil in the Gulf waters. Yet, they still cannot help sounding the claxxons of alarm.


So, why again did alleged-President Obama shut down the oil fields in the Gulf?

Blast From the Past

Dorothy Thompson (Harper's Magazine, August 1941) Who Goes Nazi?

(h/t Kathy Shaidle and The Anchoress )

Rejecting Just One More II

I've previously laughed about the "Just One More" pseudo-argument favored by Dawkins and his disciples. I think I've treated it in a more substantive manner (while still mocking it), but if so, it was as a comment on someone else's blog, and I know not where.

William Vallicella has a pretty good recent post about the pseudo-argument: "Some of Us Just Go One God Further" However, I simply must dispute (*) his final thought in the piece:

For sophisticated theists, however, atheism is a live option. The existence of this asymmetry makes one wonder whether any productive dialog with atheists is possible.

The problem with so many such "sophisticated theists" is that they choose, for various reasons, to behave as though they were stupid.

The truth of the matter is this: atheism -- the denial that there is a Creator-God -- is not a live option for any rational being.

The problem (for atheism) isn't just that atheism cannot account for all we know to be true -- no -ism can do that, nor has the requirement to do that. The problem (for atheism) is that atheism implicitly denies things we know to be true, including truth about ourselves -- and no -ism which does that can possibly be true.

And what is *known* to be false, *known* to be impossible to be true, can never be a "live option" for rational beings.

I've sketched this particular "Problem With Atheism" --
The First Question
You Cannot Reason (a sketch of my, for lack of a better name, "Ego Argument Against Atheism")
I'm not the only one (looking at the argument in "You Cannot Reason" from a slightly different angle).



(*) And, by the way, I am convinced that my disputing of such wrong-headed collegiality is one reason I am a "punk" in his eyes.

Lawrence Auster ... Just Being Lawrence Auster

Here is Lawrence Auster ... who, it seems to me, is just being Lawrence Auster; that is, Mr Auster seemingly cannot forgo the opportunity to non-constructively criticize conservative writers and magazines or sites ... just because.

Now, IF Mr Jackson were doing as Mr Auster says he is ... IF Mr Auster's criticism of Mr Jackson's piece appeared to be principled -- in contrast to appearing to be just another instance of "this is just what Auster does" -- then I'd not be criticizing Auster at the moment.

That is, we conservatives certainly should not wink at "one of ours" engaging in the sorts of disreputabe behaviors we condemn when the "liberals" do it; such winking would be intellectually dishonest, it would be hypocritical, it would be immoral to do so.


Or, perhaps I ought to cut Auster some slack. Perhaps he's just not flexible enough in his thinking or robust enough in his intelligence to be able to hold more than one or two logical associations in his consciousness at any one time. I mean, Gentle Reader ought to understand by now that I don't believe any of us are generally in a position to make such a judgment about another ... yet, it cannot be discounted as a logical possibility.

And, if *that* is the answer to the perennial question, "What is the problem with Lawrence Auster?" then, obviously, we all should cut him some slack.

And ignore him and all his works: for if he can't help it, then he simply can't help it.

To quote Lawrence Auster's piece: American Thinker falsely accuses Michelle of blaming obesity on racism

On the subject of Michelle Obama's recent speech to the NAACP, Kevin Jackson, another of American Thinker's endless supply of half-baked writers from the heartland, repeatedly accuses her of blaming the obesity of black children on racism. Yet he does not present a single quote from her speech in which she actually makes such an accusation:
...
[snip of Auster quoting Jackson]
...
To ascertain the facts, I read Michelle's speech. It is true that the rhetorical framework of her speech consists of congratulations of the NAACP for its work against racial discrimination. But that is merely to be expected. Everything in the world of organized black America is approached through the lens of racial inequality and its overcoming. It is the only common reference point blacks have for discussing their problems, and thus is obligatory in any speech by or to blacks. However, in the main body of Michelle's speech, which is about obesity and what to do about it, she never once says or hints that obesity is due to racial discrimination. She blames the problem on lifestyle, families, entertainment. Indeed, she places the main burden of responsibility on black families, who she says must start having healthful meals.

Thus Jackson's accusation, for which he supplies not a single supporting fact, which in turn raised my suspicions, is disproved by Michelle's speech.

This is just one example of how the mainstream conservative Web has become in large part an instrument, not for informing and persuading readers, but for whipping up their partisan passions. I am not saying that the mainstream conservative Web as a whole is bad, and I am not saying that American Thinker as a whole is bad. But the badness has become endemic. And no one in the mainstream conservative world mentions it.

Now, it is true that Mr Jackson might have more explicity quoted Mrs Obama's statements to supply the context which supports his thesis. I don't know, perhaps he expects his readers to be able to read for themselves and to be able grasp that 2 + 2 = 4.

Here is the text of Mrs Obama's speech; an excerpt:

...
One hundred and one years ago, the NAACP was established in pursuit of a simple goal, and that was to spur this nation to live up to the founding ideals, to secure those blessings of liberty, to fulfill that promise of equality.
...
But I also know that their legacy isn't an entitlement to be taken for granted. And I know it is not simply a gift to be enjoyed. Instead, it is an obligation to be fulfilled.

And when so many of our children still attend crumbling schools, and a black child is still far more likely to go to prison than a white child, I think the founders of this organization would agree that our work is not yet done. (Applause.)

When African American communities are still hit harder than just about anywhere by this economic downturn, and so many families are just barely scraping by, I think the founders would tell us that now is not the time to rest on our laurels.

When stubborn inequalities still persist -- in education and health, in income and wealth -- I think those founders would urge us to increase our intensity, and to increase our discipline and our focus and keep fighting for a better future for our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.)

And that's why I really wanted to come here today -- because I wanted to talk with you about an issue that I believe cries out for our attention -- one that is of particular concern to me, not just as First Lady, but as a mother who believes that we owe it to our kids to prepare them for the challenges that we know lie ahead. And that issue is the epidemic of childhood obesity in America today.

How is it that Mr Auster cannot grasp that Mrs Obama *is* whinging that so-called racism is the reason that "stubborn inequalities still persist -- in education and health, in income and wealth." How is it that Mr Auster simply cannot grasp that Mrs Obama *is* whinging that so-called racism is the reason that "so many of our children still attend crumbling schools, and a black child is still far more likely to go to prison than a white child."

Sure, ultimately Mrs Obama is pushing leftism, but she's using hyper-concern about (hypothetical and/or mythological) racism as the vehicle.



Mr Jackson blogs here

Walter Williams Speaks

These are links to two good talks, circa 1990, by Dr Walter Williams --
Government Intervention and Individual Freedom
How much can discrimination explain?

Another example of 'liberal' intellectual dishonesty

WorldNetDaily: 'Lose Christianity or face expulsion'

A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.

School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.

Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.

The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.

"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.
...

Ah! Let's see if we can unpack all this.

Apparently, according to the school, homosexual behavior is not a behavioral choice, but is rather a “state of being.” You know, the old "I was born this way (and you can't judge me)" whinge.

But, on the other hand, apparently Miss Keeton's “homophobia” is NOT a “state of being,” but is, rather, a behavioral choice.

Is that how it works?

But how does that work? Why should we believe that that is correct? If we are to believe that "homophilia" is not a behavioral choice, but is rather a "state of being," why should we not *also* believe that "homophobia" is not a behavioral choice, but is rather a "state of being?"

Why does the gander get his own special sauce?

If the demander of special rights based on what he wants to do with his genitals ... er, if the "gay" "rights" activist ... can assert, "This is the way I was born and you have no moral right to judge my behavior which follows from the way I was born" then why cannot the rest of us assert the very same in response?


But, we all know that the "liberals" will shriek like chimpanzees (and fling poop) against the very suggestion that it is as fully appropriate to apply the very argument they champion as a defense of "homophilia" to serve as a defense of "homophobia."

This is yet one more instance of the intellectual dishonesty of “liberals”-- they’ll say anything and its opposite because they don’t give a damn about truth, they don't give a damn about anything other than power over the lives, and minds, of others.

The argument from ancient credulity

Victor Repport has a recent post called 'The argument from ancient credulity:'

A popular argument against the New Testament miracle claims is to say that ancient peoples were credulous and would be disinclined to doubt miracle claims in general. Glenn Miller responds, mostly, to Richard Carrier on this point, suggesting that present-day skeptics overrate ancient credulity.

The response by Glenn Miller to this (so-called) argument that Reppert references is here.

I have a few thoughts to add:
1) my post called ''Science! and Miracles ... and Skepticism!'
2) Richard Dawkins' (and his acolytes') amusing, and frequent, assertions that anti-Darwinists (and anti-atheists) are guilty of, and primarily motivated by, some logical fallacy he calls the "argument from incredulity" or the "argument from personal incredulity."

Because, as we all know, credulity is such a Good Thing (*).

This "argument from ancient credulity" is but one more instance of the intellectual dishonesty which is epidemic amongst God-deniers. When it suits their purposes, they will fault their opponents as being too credulous (or so they will assert of them). When it suits their purposes, they will fault their opponents as being not credulous enough for continuing to be unimpressed by their assertions which they imagine are arguments.

And, meanwhile, when it suits their purposes, they will be credulous or incredulous, as the need of the moment dictates.


(*) So, keep this in mind, Gentle Reader:
God-deniers (and Darwinists, and "liberals") are frequently credulous; they're frequently believe any damned fool thing, just so long as it doesn't appear to call into question what is really important to them.

Ug-lee Clock

I have an ugly and nearly tasteless clock that was my mother's and her mother's -- no one else wanted it whem Mom died, and so I ended up with it.

While I was visiting my sisters earlier in the week, I saw a clock even more ugly and more tasteless than the one hidden in my basement. Gentle Reader, you are advised avert your eyes before continuing ...

I should have looked to see it there was one pointing to fork o'clock.

Concerning the pendulum swing about Shirley Sherrod

Andy McCarthy (on NRO): Ms. Sherrod's Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism

...
Pardon me, but I think I'll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she's still got plenty of racial baggage. What we're seeing is not transcendence but transference. That's why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.

With an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy assuming overlord status in what used to be private industry and private matters, are we supposed to feel better that this particular bureaucrat's disdain, though once directed at all white people, is now channeled only toward successful white people ... most of whom - like successful black people - worked very hard to become successful? Are we supposed to forget that when the Left says, "It's always about the money," you don't have to have a whole lot of money to find yourself on the wrong side of their have/have-not equation? Are we supposed to take comfort in having our affairs managed by bureaucrats who see the country as a Manichean divide beset by institutionalized racism?

Exactly: "are we supposed to feel better that this particular bureaucrat's disdain, though once directed at all white people, is now channeled only toward successful white people ... most of whom - like successful black people - worked very hard to become successful?"

Or, as I said a couple of days ago:

I heartily agree. [with this post by Neo-neocon]

And yet … were Miss Sherrod white and conservative, would there *ever* be forgiveness for her admission that she had realized that she herself had harbored racist attitudes? Would the fact that she had overcome them, or had at least set them aside in performing her duties, ever give her absolution for the fact of having had the thoughts in the first place?

To ask those questions is to answer them, is it not? Especially had she been an eeeeeevil white heterosexual man.

Of course, if she were conservative, she’d not have traded in an incipient racist attitude for an implicitly, much less explicitly, classist one.

Edit (2010-07-26a):
As is typical, far too many people are allowing the "liberals" to (re)frame the issue as being that "that horrible, terrible, conservative meanie, Breitbart, has unjustly launched a personal attack on poor, innocent, "progressive" Shirley Sherrod."

As far as I can gather, this is Breitbart’s first post on the matter -- and it is being misrepresented by nearly everyone.

The truth is, the full tape doesn’t really do Miss Sherrod any favors. She “got past black vs. white” by deciding that *some* whites are OK … if they’re poor enough.

And, in fact, that is clear even in the edited tape -- in Miss Sherrod's own words, "... So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him. That's when it was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have. And not so much about white ... it *is* about white and black ... but it's not, you know ... it opened my eyes. Because I took him to own of his own." [That's where the edited tape of her speech, as available on the above linked page, ends. As I understand it, the "one of his own" was that white lawyer she had mentioned ... who then proceded to screw over the white farmer.]


Some, on the conservative side, are "defending" Breitbart on the dubous grounds that "he got played." There are at least two problems with that move:
1) it accepts the false "liberal" reframing of the issue;
2) it is at best, lame, and in truth closer to intellectual dishonesty. -- One has a duty to ensure that one’s statements on matters such as this reflect reality and do not misrepresent the other person or organization.

But, in truth, Breitbart has nothing to apologize for. WHY is it that almost no one can see that we are still being played by the “liberals” on this? WHY is it that almost no one can see that the “liberals” have chaged the subject … and everyone is letting them get away with that distraction? Once again.


Here is an article I read (courtessy of Bob Parks), discussing further developments ... yet still seeming to miss the truth that we are all being spun by the "liberals" to see this as "that horrible, terrible, conservative meanie, Breitbart, has unjustly launched a personal attack on poor, innocent, "progressive" Shirley Sherrod." -- Jeffrey Lord (The American Spectator): Sherrod Story False


Edit (2010-07-26b):
Lawrence Auster: Sherrod's Profits (especially attend the comment by 'Thucydides')


Edit (2010-07-27):
Jay Tea: Rushing To Judgment

Though, it cannot be emphasized enough: the full video does not actually show her to have put her race-hatred behind her. Rather (and this is clear even in the edited clip), she transferred her hatred from all whites to those she perceives as "rich."

How much you want to bet that "evil rich whites" who deserve to be hated includes all conservatives, including "Uncle Toms?"


Edit (2010-07-28):
Tony Blankley (on NRO) pens a pretty good end-of-the-'news-cycle' analysis of the Sherrod brouhaha: Cry Racism! Notice:

Notice, by the way, that he alerted the viewer that “eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.” It’s in the video, and it is in the text of Breitbart’s original post on the topic. But the mainstream media selectively edited out this exonerating fact in virtually every story about Breitbart. So the subsequent charge against Breitbart by the mainstream media — that his editing was misleading — was itself misleading.

That is, Breitbart did not attack Mrs Sherrod personally (he was, and rightly so, attacking the hypocrisy of the NAACP), nor did he call her a racist -- even though it turns out that she *is* a racist -- NOR did he misrepresent her with the edited clip.

Mr Blankley ends with: "And so did the rank cynicism of overplaying the race card turn that dreaded knave into a joker"

Let us hope. Myself, I have always refused to be intimidated or silenced by that knee-jerk "liberal" bullshit accusation. May it be that Americans in general refuse to any longer be intimidated by it.

‘COEXIST?’ You First.

I had thought to eventually write something about those obnoxious 'COEXIST' bumperstickers that certain self-righteous poseurs like to put on their Priuses. But, the linked piece is so good, I can't think of anything to add.

Kurt Schlichter (Big Peace): ‘COEXIST?’ You First.

Fact-checking associations

Kevin Jackson (American Thinker): NAACP Ushers in The Era of Nonsense

...
Jealous [pres. of NAACP] refuses to believe -- or even speak with -- the many blacks who have actually attended the thousands of Tea Party events without a single racial incident.

However, the NAACP, and its co-conspirators like the Congressional Black Caucus, is constantly associating tea parties to the Klan, as Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) did here.

I fact-checked this and found that at the Democrat-sponsored Klan events of the past, the only featured blacks present were the ones being lynched! ...

Mr Jackson blogs here

Defanging 'Wacist!'

Selwyn Duke (American Thinker): Hello, I'm a Racist, Pleased to Meet You

...
And what of civility? Be wary. When the left is civil -- or calls for civility -- it's usually a ruse. It's simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here's how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, "You're mean! You're intolerant! What happened to civility? [Translation: You called our lies lies! How dare you?]" Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.

And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It means doing what's fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse, and they'll fold like a tent.

So free yourself. Laugh at the "racism" shtick. Make it a badge of honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK. I'm a racist, sexist homophobe, and I'm in your face. What's it to ya?

In my experience, those who make a big deal about demanding "civility," regardless of their left-right orientation, are almost always very uncivil in practice. They demand this “civility” of thee (be thou Christian, or conservative, or anti-Darwinist), but not of he (thy corresponding anti-Christian, or “liberal,” or Darwinist), and certainly not of themselves. In my experience, nothing sets the “civility” fetishists off like bluntly exposing the lies of the anti-Christian, or the “liberal,” or the Darwinist.

Getting back to Mr Duke's point, the leftists are going to keep calling you "racist" no matter what -- so long as you keep cowering at the accusation. So stop cowering! Stop trying to prove the accusation false -- they know it's false: they don't give a damn about truth. What they give a damn about is power in the longer term, and shutting you up in the short term. They know that that calling you "Racist!" works very well to shut you up, because you *always* start sputtering and trying to prove to the very persons who know they are lying about you that they are mistaken in the accusation.

So, make a choice: are you going to continue to behave as though you are stupid? or, are you going to be honest with yourself about who you are up against? Are you going to continue to be their puppet, or are you going to say, "Wait! I didn't come from the factory with these strings, and I don't need them!"

Dewd!

Dewd! All you really need to do is say, "I was wrong." An "I'm sorry" wouldn't hurt, but isn't absolutely necessary, as it's implied in the former.

Journoquiddick -- VRWC vs VLWC/2

Matteo and Kathy Shaidle have a number of posts and links to others' posts concerning the latest liberal-media political scandal to come out of the 'JournoList' usergroup ... In this case, it is the "coordination" by a number of "objective" journalists (which is to say, wholly-owned mouthpieces for the DNC) to bury the story about Jeremiah Wright as relates to alleged-President Obama.

Matteo: The Hits Just Keep On Coming
Matteo: Legally Actionable?
Matteo: All You Need To Know About The MFM

Kathy Shaidle: But remember: minorities can't be racists, and liberals can't be 'haters'
Kathy Shaidle: 'Rev. Wright is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life'
Kathy Shaidle: Wow, this sounds so familiar ...



The "liberals" seem always to be in a tizzy about the famous so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy" ... I think it's because they're *jealous* of conservatives, with our lone imaginary "vast right-wing conspiracy." And they're jealous because all their conspiracies always turn out to be merely half-vast.

In political calculus, it appears to be the case that iVRWC > x(VLWC/2) for all values of 'x' -- it appears that one imaginary "vast right-wing conspiracy" is greater than any number of "half-vast left-wing conspiracies."

===
Look, boys and girls, this newest scandal, like all the rest, *is* "liberalism," and there can be no compromise by sane persons with it. "Liberalism" is wicked, it is morally evil, and thus it necessarily corrupts all who embrace it. "Liberalism" has not a damned thing to do with "helping the disadvantaged" -- and even that self-congratulatory phrase is morally and rationally offensive (*) (**) -- rather, "liberalism" is all about the acquiring of and holding onto power over the lives of others.


(*) Concerning "the disadvantaged" -- to call poor persons "disadvantaged" is to at least imply that those who are not poor are so due to some unfair and unearned advantage ... and it is to imply that poor are poor because the not-poor cause them to be poor. Calling poor persons "disadvantaged" is, at best, but another reflection of the "liberal" refusal to understand wealth and its creation and uses.


(**) Further, no one is holding a gun to "liberals" heads so as to stop them from using their own wealth as they see fit to help the poor, if that is really what they wanted to do ... and let's not even get into the question of whether the sorts of help they are ever willing to consider can actually help anyone (***). Rather, it is "liberals" who are always gung-ho for holding guns to everyone else's heads so as to compel them to "contribute" "their fair-share" toward "helping the disadvantaged."


(***) The adage, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life" expresses a conservative understanding and approach. The "liberal" version of the adage is: "Teach a man to fish and you have a job for today; give a man a fish and you have a lifetime employment."

I can't believe she didn't have it!

I can't believe my sister didn't have the right tool!

This past weekend, I drove over to Indiana so that my one sister could fix my car's brakes. And by "fix," I mean replace the rotors and pads. And, I am shocked (Shocked!) that she didn't have the right tool to reset or compress the cylinders on the back brakes.

You have to understand, this woman has like everything a weekend warrior might dream of having in his garage -- beginning with the garage itself, a three-bay pole-barn structure (with a good 12 to 14 feet of headroom) that she build soon after buying her house. I don't mean that she hired someone to build it for her, I mean that *she* built it with her own hands and some help from her son.

And the tools she has! For instance, she doesn't have *a* screwdriver; rather, one of the drawers in one of her tool chests is full of them, all neatly laid out for maximum use of the space in the drawer. She even has an air compressor and all sorts of tools to use with it!

Yet, for all those tools she has, we still had to use pliers to turn the brake cylinder. Fortunately, she has all sorts of pliers and we were able to use one to get it reset. She also changed the spark plugs and cables.

Thanks sis!

I told her I was going to have to blog about her not having a particular tool she'll probably never again have call to wish she had. I'll bet she didn't think I would do it.


My other sister, the twin of the first mentioned, has never built a three-bay garage, but she can use power tools and hand tools, and she used to own quite a number of them herself. This younger one is the one who came over one weekend last summer to help me get started with building the roof/enclosure over my patio. And a year or two prior to that she helped me reroof part of the house.

Yesterday, she patched a bunch of my shirts and jeans.

Thanks sis!

When Henry Higgins whinged, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" he was lamenting he didn't know any women like my sisters.

Liberalism *is* a cultural suicide pact

Gentle Reader may recall that I sometimes say, in response to some "liberal" misrepresentation of Christianity, that "Christianity is not a [cultural/mutual] suicide pact." In the following piece, Mr Richardson shows, quite simply, that "liberalism" is a cultural mutual suicide pact --

Mark Richardson (Oz Conservative): Identity lite [either I originally messed up the link, or blogger did when I tried to get rid of a pornbot's post]

Vox Day's Problem II

I've been meaning to write and post this for about a week and a half (that is, since it happened), but there are frequently things more interesting to me than holding up for ridicule behavior which needs to be ridiculed.

Gentle Reader may recall that in the comments section of the 'Vox Day's Problem' post, I said:

quoting VD: " ... Being an Award-Winning Cruelty Artist, I tend to rather enjoy seeing how speedily I can force them to retreat from a prosecutorial pose to the position of a desperate, wild-eyed defense attorney who knows his client is headed straight for the chair."

Ilíon:His primary motivation isn't to get at the truth, but to humiliate someone -- or, at least, to tell himself in his internal-dialog AAR (after action report) that he has humiliated someone. And, it seems, if he hasn't gotten his fix recently enough by beating up on someone who might be said to have deserved it, just about anyone will do.

Mind you, I’m not criticizing him because he’s “mean,” but because his goal is humiliation and dominance of others.

This post is written to illustrate a prime example of the above analysis of his personality.

First, here is a post on his blog in which he does not display his problem: 'Flipping the flipped script.' It's a measured and sensible essay, even with the "Game" silliness it contains. I recommend it as a pretty good read and analysis of the subject matter.

BUT, in the comments, one finds this:

VD (quoted by JQP): But in the end, if you want a good man, then stop chasing bad ones.

John Quincy Public: Groovy. And contrariwise [sic] if you want a good woman, stop acting like a bad man. Pathological narcissism is estimated to be prevalent in 1 out of 6 men, or 16 2/3%; a number remarkably close and consistent with the estimate of 20% given by your quotette above.

So let's have no more of this nonsense of Game and the faux narcissists it manufactures.

VD: JQP, if you have nothing to add to this particular conversation and no interest in it, why do you insist on taking part in it?

Now, the thing Gentle Reader needs to understand is that JQP is a member-in-good-standing of the so-called "Dread Ilk" -- that's "Vox Day's" pet name for the butt-sniffing toadies with which he likes to surround himself. MIND YOU, I am not saying that JQP is a butt-sniffing toady, just that a high percentage of the "Dread Ilk" are, and that that's how "Vox Day" likes it.

And look at this! JQP isn't even disputing anything "Vox Day" said in the original post; he's extending it, and pointing to the simple truth that the principle "Vox Day" elucidates in the OP applies to men every bit as to women.

And yet, apparently, "Vox Day" had the overwhelming *need* to "put him in his place."

Man! I would hate to be "Spacebunny" -- that is, assuming that "Spacebunny" isn't just another way to say "Vox Day." And, if it is, then I'd *really* hate to be "Spacebunny."

Mel Gibson and Conservatives-in-Thrall-to-Liberal-Shibboleths ... and Lawrence Auster

I've been meaning to write this little item for a couple of days (and once again not updating and completing the post I'd promised 'Crude').

Originally, the intended post was in no way about Lawrence Auster. Rather, his connection to what I mean to say is that I was going to expand upon his comments/criticisms of something posted by Ed Morrissey on 'Hot Air'. But, in the meantime, Auster has written another post on the matter -- and has fallen into exactly the same "liberal" shibboleth for which I was going to criticize Morressey. This is rather odd, because Auster himself is forever criticizing that particular false mentality.

I suppose -- lest any "liberal" who may encounter these words gets the vapors -- I ought to first say a few words about my relationship, or lack thereof, with Mr Auster: we don't get along, and there are a number of things about him, both personally and philosophically, to which I strongly object. OK, maybe only one thing on the personal side -- he's not much better than "Vox Day" at accepting criticism, especially when it's correct (but, even there, "Vox Day" is worse). Philosophically? Several things, beginning with his near-obsession about race, when the problem is not biological race, but rather culture.

And that's really all I wish to say directly about Mr Auster on that particular account. Should the reader *really* care about a fuller exploration of my opinion on the matter, months ago at the 'What's Wrong With the World' blog, in a thread that was about "The Trouble with Larry," I explained (and documented) my view of what the trouble is. Since I've already done it, even though it's not posted on my blog, I feel no particular urge to revisit the matter. And, indirectly, the reaction of a different member (that is, different from the one who ask the question) of 'What's Wrong With the World' is why I no longer bother with that blog.

Nevertheless, and whatever "The Trouble with Larry" is, when he's right, he's right.

==========
So, I wish first to draw the reader's attention to this post by Auster touching on the most recent self-immolation by Mel Gibson. Specifically, Auster's point is about the absurdity of conservatives reacting like "precious little Victorian ladies, ready to faint dead away at the sound of the "N" word, even when uttered in a private conversation by a man who was obviously drunk."

Auster is criticizing the lamentable fact that very few who consider themselves to be conservative have ever put forth the intellectual effort necessary to de-program themselves from the leftist orthodoxies to which we all have been inculcated in the public indoctrination centers ... er, public schools. The main purpose of public "education," once the Progressive got control of it, was to train up the citizenry as Pavlovian dogs ... and far too many who think themselves conservative automatically react with the "proper" unthinking responses.

Next up is Morrissey's post on 'Hot Air' -- on which Auster was commenting, and to which my comments had originally been solely directed:

... Here’s the transcript:

“You go out in public and it’s a f*cking embarrassment to me. You look like a f*cking bitch in heat. And if you get raped by a pack of ni**ers it will be your fault. Alright? Because you provoked it. You are provocatively dressed all the time with your fake boobs that you feel you have to show off. I don’t like it. I don’t want that woman. I don’t want you. I don’t trust you. I don’t love you.”

In the previous post, commenters debated the use of the N-word in the context of the entertainment industry, but this isn’t a shout out to his peeps. Assuming this is Gibson, the actor uses the term in an extremely derogatory sense, as if rape necessarily follows from skin color. For that matter, says that rape comes from dressing provocatively, as if it’s a rational response to tight clothing, which is hardly true and perpetuates the notion that rape is a woman’s fault.

While the Pavlovian hyperventilation about the infamous "N-word" is absurd enough, what I wish to draw the reader's attention to is the further absurdity of a supposed conservative channeling some whacked-out man-hating bull-dyke feminist.

Gibson didn't say *anything* that can reasonably be construed as even implying that "rape necessarily follows from skin color." Rather, he made a reference to a sad fact of life in contemporary America, of which everyone is supposed to pretend to be wholly ignorant: black rapists rape white women (and men) *because* they are white, and they frequently do it in packs. And they frequently viciously maul and murder their victims.

Nor did Gibson didn't say *anything* that can reasonably be construed as even implying that rape is "a rational response to tight clothing" or that a woman who is raped deserves it (while 'deserve' is not the word Morressey uses, for he echoes Gibson's use of "your fault," that is what he is getting at).

Had Ms Grigorieva, Mr Gibson's erstwhile slut, been in the habit of teetering in her stiletto heels on the railing of a 13th floor balcony, and Gibson had "ranted" at her that "if you fall off there an kill yourself, it will be your own fault!" would any rational man imagine there was any flaw in what he had said, or that he had meant that she would *deserved* the very predictable result of he freely chosen behavior?

Of course not. A rational man understands that in the hypothetical Gibson means that Grigorieva's behavior greatly increases her chance of an unpleasant and untimely death. Likewise with what he did say: a rational man understands that Gibson means that Grigorieva's behavior greatly increases her chance of an unpleasant and unwanted, and possibly fatal, sexual encounter.


Lastly, there is another post by Auster, in which he echoes Moressey's unthinking Pavlovian recitation of "liberal" and feminist cant:

Again, Gibson said any number of extremely offensive things in his surreptitiously recorded private phone conversation with his former girl friend, including telling her that with the way she dressed she deserved to be gang raped. ...

Let me be perfectly clear (to coin a phrase), whatever Gibson may have been thinking, according to the transcripts, he did *not* tell his former slut that she deserves to be gang raped; rather, he told her a simple truth: her freely chosen behavior -- her insistence on living the fantasy of Grrl Power -- increases the odds that she will become a target of some of the predators amongst us.

Really, Mr Auster! This is one of your persistent (and correct!) themes: that leftism requires human sacrifice, in one form or another, and that the contemporary "liberal" edition of leftism gets those sacrifices by training up the people to be Eloi for the Morlocks who walk among us.

========= Update: 2010/07/14
Mr Auster has posted an update: I contradicted myself on Gibson -- which begins with this fully-expected Austerism:

The blogger Ilion--one of an entire sub-population of commenters in the right-wing blogosphere who falsely and obsessively accuse me of not replying to criticisms of myself, when the fact is that I refuse to reply to rude, irrational, and hostile statements about myself ...

That is *so* rich, coming from Lawrence Auster! Anyone who has spent much time reading him knows that he's a veritable one-man cottage industry of "falsely and obsessively accus[ing]" right-wing commentators of all manner of perfidy -- mostly involving their failure to echo him on certain matters.

And, lest anyone's memory of what I actually said be subborned by having read Mr Auster's claim that I accused him of "not replying to criticisms of [him]self" -- what I said (you can look it up!) is: " OK, maybe [I have] only one [strong objection to him] on the personal side -- he's not much better than "Vox Day" at accepting criticism, especially when it's correct (but, even there, "Vox Day" is worse)."


Steve Burton (on the 'What's Wrong With The World' blog) 'The Trouble With Larry' -- among the comments are mine, of which I had spoken above.


Updated: 2010/07/14

Something else that probably 'is not acceptable'

Here is something else that probably "is not acceptable;" at least, "to me."

That title and preceding sentence are probably cryptic to Gentle Reader. The point is to express my adamant disdain for a specific act of refusal to reason properly about a recent event here in the US which had certain commonalities with the barbarism described in the linked news items.

The Telegraph: Taleban hang 7-year-old boy to punish family

The Sunday Times: Life under the Taliban: how a boy of seven was hanged to punish his family

Oh! I forgot to mention, this is "sick," too.

=========== edit ===========
Let us suppose that these news items had included some reactions by some typical citizens of some Western nation or other regarding this particular incident.

And, let us suppose that one of these so-typical Westerners had said, in reaction to learning of this news, "I understand they have their culture and religion but to me this is not acceptable."

And, let us suppose that some other Westerner -- who takes the things human beings say, because he takes the things they think, very seriously -- had criticized this reaction due to the mindset it evinces. Let us suppose we even know what he said, which (as we are supposing) was:

Notice what the [citizen] says, even as she’s “condemning” (I have to use those scare-quotes) this barbarity: "I understand they have their culture and religion but to me this is not acceptable."

Two things:
1) “it’s all about me”
2) her “condemnation” isn’t *really* a condemnation (which is why I used the scare-quotes).

And, let us suppose that some third Westerner had decided to take offense at what the second Westerner had said. I know, this is really stretching Gentle Reader's credulity, but please bear with me. Let us suppose that this third Westerner had responded:

I don’t agree with that. The [citizen] sounds actually concerned and there’s nothing wrong with making room in one’s worldview for the beliefs of others. This [citizen] was acknowledging that there is an objective morality and this barbarous practice does not fit into it. She doesn’t have to condemn Islam to be sincere.

And, as we are supposing so freely, let us further suppose that that second Westerner had replied, very mildly, along these lines:

“This [citizen] was acknowledging that there is an objective morality ...”

That is precisely what she is *not* doing. Which is why I said what I said.

Notice that Mr Red (thank goodness for colors) did not rip Miss Blue a new one for imputing:
1) that he is closed-minded;
2) that he has an animus against Moslems;
3) that he said, or even implied, that the first citizen is required to condemn Islam in order to establish her bona fides as a Concerned Citizen.

Rather, Mr Red appears to be attempting to keep things focused on the points of his intitial criticism of the habits-of-mind which would lead a person to make the sort of ill-considered remark that Miss Concerned Citizen made. It's sort of like calling the enormity of Sept 11, 2001 a "tragedy" -- such a remark evinces a mind not thinking clearly and properly (usually due to an infestation of "liberalism").

Let us further suppose that we do not run out of colors, for now we must suppose that yet another Western citizen expresses some thoughts on the unfolding interpersonal drama:

I think you’re reading too literally a different choice of words than you would use. For someone to say “To me, …” is the same as “It is my belief that…” or even “I think that…” - they’re just prefaces to their statements of what they see as the truth. It’s a somewhat timid preface, as it actually discounts the speaker somewhat, that may just be as much a habit of speech as anything else.

But I think these prefaces make it easier for others to hear us if we’re introducing something they may not want to accept. Like, if you give someone “permission” to disagree with you, he is less defensive, and you may be able to persuade him to your view more easily.

And to which (as we are supposing), Mr Red replied:

Why would you imagine that I, of all people, would object to “I think that …”?

… though, of course, these days, when most people say, “I think that …,” what they really mean is “I guess that …” or “I desire to believe (whether or not it is warrented) that …”

Look again at the statement I quoted: “... but to me this is not acceptable.“

Miss Burgandy may (or may not) have said, in response:

Aside from my never having noticed you using prefaces at all… ;)

But what am I missing in your sample sentence? Do you think I’m misinterpreting the “but to me” part?

Miss Burgandy is leading with a joke, of course, for Mr Red's prose is typically dense with qualifiers and prefaces.

Mr Red's reply might be along these lines:

Yes, I know you are. That, and the “is not acceptable” part.

But, I’m sure we’re all up to speed on “this”

This, Gentle Reader, is where even I begin to get confused (and I'm leading the supposing). I think, though I am not totally sure, that this is where we might reasonably suppose that Miss Blue said:

Nice play, [Mr Red].

Somewhere, in all that supposing, I'm sure we need to suppose that a certain Mr Navy said to Mr Red:

Next you’re going to demand that we take a position on “thighing” babies and girls under six years of age. You are never satisfied!

If the [citizen] would have called them a bunch of f’ing animals, CAIR’s coffers would fill and they would have their ad campaign for the next year. Ann Coulter was exactly right when she said that Jew’s needed ro be perfected-that’s one of the things Christ came to do afterall. But how many people did she win over? Essential truths are hard to swallow and should never be equivocated. But I myself get sick of seeing neighbors with pitchforks and lit torches. Saying “this is unacceptable” sits well with me.

But, I don't suppose that anyone said anything in response.

======
Look, what the original Miss Purple said ("I understand they have their culture and religion but to me this is not acceptable.") as a reaction to learning that a neighborhood teen girl had been tortured by her father and brother (as prelude to full murder) for some sort of unislamic behavior, perhaps so simple as refusing to wear a body-bag or being interested in an "infidel" boy, is the very opposite of making a moral judgment. It is not not just declining to express a moral judgment, it is bending over backwards to bow to the altar of "liberal" "non-judgmentalism" (those quotes are because the "non-judgmentalism" of "liberals" is anything but) and assert that no one can make an objective moral judgment.

To say "this is not acceptable." about torture and attempted murder of one's own kin is nowhere near condemning it.

"This is not acceptable" is the sort of thing one says to one's lump of a boy-friend after he uses his dessert fork during the salad course at a State Dinner at the While House and then guffaws and farts loudly when you give him That Look. And why did you bring him, anyway? You know what he's like!

To say "this is not acceptable." about torture and attempted murder is to assert that moral obligations are on the same plane as social manners. Perhaps steroetypical upper-crust Episcopalians can get away with thinking that way, but that is not reality.

And then, what tiny little bit of sting Miss Purple might have put into her "condemnation" of torture and attempted murder as a social faux pas, she completely retracts with the preface "but to me" -- she might as well have said, "... some may say that this is not acceptable, but your milage may vary."

Likewise, calling something like this, or the perpetrators, "sick" is also a refusal to make proper moral judgments. Calling the persons who commit wicked acts "sick" is to excuse them their wickedness -- while one may choose to put down a rabid dog, one does not accuse it of choosing and acting immorally; one puts it down for prudence, not for its non-existent wickedness.

====
The careful reader will notice that I have attempted no "phychoanalysis" of what is in Miss Purple's heart (or Miss Blue's); I have concerned myself with what has been said and the habits-of-mind and habits-of-social-convention indicated thereby.

As I asked recently: "What's the point of opposing the effects of the lie if you will not oppose the lie itself?" Persons consciously holding to the false ideologies of the left have been intentionally "educating" the young of our nation into "liberalism" for longer than anyone now alive has been living -- we all, to one degree or another, have been seeped in "liberalism;" we all, at times, and quite unconsciously, follow the "liberal" script (*). But, it's time, and passed time, to wake up! If we don't consciously examine *everything* shaping our worldviews and our reactions to events, and throw out that which is false and destructive, then how can we be shocked that everything seems to be falling apart?

(*) There is a post to be made on this, concerning the most recent Mel Gibson self-immolation.

On 'Dan Brownism'

Jason Pratt: Was Suppression of Options for New Testament Canon Only Due to Imperial Pressure?

11 Reasons to Vote Democrat in November

11 Reasons to Vote Democrat in November

Two observations (touching on the Obamanation)

I have two observations that I wish to share with Gentle Reader, which I recently made on the 'Reflecting Light' blog in response to Rick Darby's post about the suit against Arizona by the administration of alleged-President Obama.

The first observation is more general and isn't directly about the suit; and, of course, the observation is not unique or original to me: "The only thing [in this world that] a man ever really owns is his tax liability."

Here is the context in which I said that:

Rick Darby: ... The federal government under Mad King Barack has asserted its power to stop a state from protecting its citizens from illegal immigration unofficially sanctioned by Washington. Worse than that: it has declared that no state - and by extension, no individual or locality - can insist that Washington fulfill its own duties required by the Constitution. ...

Ilíon: Federal courts have already ruled that mere US citizens do not have "standing" to petition the courts to order that the Constitution's provisions be enforced.

Rick Darby: But U.S. citizens have the privilege of supporting a federal government that regulates or owns almost everything.

Ilíon: The only thing a man ever really owns is his tax liability.

The second observation I wish to share with Gentle Reader is the thought that the administration of alleged-President Obama has, for all practical purposes, with its suit against Arizona, just asserted the dissolution of the Union. Should the suit succeed, then, other than the formalities, the Union is no more. Here is the context and my reasoning:

Martin B: ... Arizona is not claiming the right to deport illegal aliens. Arizona state troopers will not be depositing bus-loads of mexicans in Nogales. They are only proposing to help enforce federal laws already on the books.

Well, if the Federal government says that Arizona should not be allowed to, then I propose that Arizona abstain from enforcing ANY federal law. Don't want to pay federal income taxes? Come to Arizona - our state won't cooperate with the IRS. Federal Drug Laws? Never heard of 'em. Federally mandated affirmative action? We won't participate.

Rick Darby: If a serious secession movement gets going, it would be great if Arizona were the first to declare its independence - from Mexico.

Ilíon: It seems to me that Martin's point is not that any State ought to contemplate secession from the Union, but rather that the "logic" of alleged-President Obama's suit against Arizona implicitly dissolves the Union.

The United States are not a democracy (one of the horrible things the "Progressives" of a century ago managed to do is to hood-wink the majority of US citizens into worshipping at the altar of "democracy"); rather, the Constitution of the US establishes a representative republic. Moreover, the United States are not a unitary state, but rather a federation -- this is *why* our ancestors always said "the United States are" and not "the United States is" (and why I am trying to train myself to do likewise).

Thus, since the United States *are* a federal (representative) republic, the several States which comprise that federation are not provinces ruled from D.C. but rather are sovereign states in their own right. The federal government is a creature of the States, the States are not creatures of the federal government. And thus, and despite the "lesson" of the Civil War, all of the States have the legal and moral right to secede the Union at their own discretion.

Except for very restricted powers and authority, explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, the federal government has no other authority over the States -- it is *their* creature, not they its.

Yet, since at least the "Progressive" era of a century ago, and picking up speed in the "New Deal" and "Great Society" eras, the politicians, and especially the bureaucrats, of the federal government have been working to turn the several States into provincesof D.C., rather than sovereign states; and the politicians of the several States, being whores bought and paid for with *your* taxes, have been cooperating in the on-going subordination of the sovereignty of their own State governments. Such an outcome for the States, along with subordination of the US Constitution itself, as actually written, were, in fact, two of the primary goals of the "Progressives" (here is a paper recently published on NRO discussing some of the "progressive" roots of our current problems: The Progressives’ Legacy of Bankruptcy).

Now, what the logic (such as it is) of the federal suit against the State of Arizona concerning Arizona's law S.B.1070 does is assert that no State has the authority to enforce any provision of any federal law. This is a far different claim than the Constitutional provision that no State law shall be held valid if it contradicts either the US Constitution or a law duly enacted by Congress.

Since the fools in this administration are too clever by half, I'm sure they imagine that what they're asserting -- which assertion, if accepted and endorsed by the federal courts, is itself damaging to stable and just government in the Union -- is that if the federal Executive declines to enforce a law or provision duly enacted by Congress, then no State or other entity may enforce its provisions, either.

I'm sure these fools believe that they're making the last necessary "argument" to turn the States into provinces of D.C. -- and turn the President into an Emperor -- and thus complete the "progressive" dream (and start the nightmare for all of us), and thereby dissolve the Union in practice, while keeping the forms and pretending nothing has changed. You know, in like manner to how the Roman Empire pretended to still be the Roman Republic.

And, if the ultimate ruling on this case goes in their favor, it is likely that for a time things will operate in this manner -- that only those acts of Congress which the current president wishes to enforce will be enforced at either federal or state level. But, eventually, ambitious and restive politicians in the States will figure out what the "logic" of the lawsuit *really* asserts. And then the Union is disolved in practice and in fact.

'Science!' and Miracles ... and Skepticism!

The purpose of this post is to mock (once again, for it is a never-empty font of mockability) the selective hyper-skepticism of those I call 'scientistes' (the word is meant to echo Miss Piggy's claim/plea to be recognized as "an Artiste"), that is, adherents and promoters of scientism, worshippers of 'Science!'

The specific target of this post is a selectively hyper-skeptical idea I've encountered before, both the Sagan quote (for instance, here), and the underlying idea, which I heard in a television "science" program; if I recall correctly, the Speaker For 'Science!' in the program was Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, and he even used the same specific claim that one's car could well "ooze" through the garage wall and park itself on the street.

Recently, on Crude's blog, Orandath posted this quotation:

"From The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

"Consider this claim: as I walk along, time -as measured by my wristwatch or my ageing process -slows down. Also, I shrink in the direction of motion. Also, I get more massive. Who has ever witnessed such a thing? It's easy to dismiss it out of hand. Here's another: matter and antimatter are all the time, throughout the universe, being created from nothing. Here's a third: once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They're all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier tunnelling,* they're called). Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the Universe.

*The average waiting time per stochastic ooze is much longer than the age of the Universe since the Big Bang. But, however improbable, in principle it might happen tomorrow."

My response to this selectively hyper-skeptical assertion is:

And, sometimes, iron axeheads which have flown off their handles and fallen into a pond or river float to the surface. [This is a reference to a miracle of the prophet Elisha, as recorded in II Kings 6:1-7] And, sometimes, the dead bodies of persons who really and truly are dead, rise back to life. [This is a reference to a number of resurrections recorded in both Old and New Testaments, including that of Jesus the Christ.]

So, given what 'scientistes' believe and assert about the nature of reality, how can their denial of, and refusal to believe, any of the miracles recorded in the Bible be anything other than selective hyper-skepticism, which is to say, intellectual dishonesty?

Something for Cathy

Enjoy

Dem Strait

Dem Strait

What's the point of whinging?

What's the point of whinging about "liberalism" and its concomitant PC-mind-control, and the damage-unto-destruction these are working upon our nation, if you will not free your mind from the empty and socially-lethal platitudes of it? What's the point of opposing the effects of the lie if you will not oppose the lie itself?

Ilíon said:

It seems to me that one small step we all can do to help fight PCism is to stop using the word ‘Muslims’ to denote the Slaves of (the demon) Allah. We have a perfectly good English word which we have used for centuries: ‘Moslems’

The common use of ‘Muslim’ in English goes back no further than PC-speak.

The Hyacinth Girl replied:

Actually, I think that the term “Muslims” is just fine. Calling a Muslim “Moslem” is like calling an Asian “Oriental.” And I’m definitely not calling anyone a slave to a demon. People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, and I don’t think that’s a “PC” sentiment. The Founders seemed to think it was the way to go.

"Actually, I think that the term “Muslims” is just fine."

This doesn't address what I said.


"Calling a Muslim “Moslem” is like calling an Asian “Oriental.”"

Really? And calling them "Asians" isn't an insult?

This is just another reflection of PC bullshit; in this instance invented by that infamous apologist for "Arab extremism" (which is to say, for terrorism and murder), Edward Said.

Is it an insult to refer to *us* as "Westerners?" Is it an insult to refer ro us as "Occidentals" (i.e. "Westerners")? No, and no. So, rationally and honestly, how does it become such a gross insult to refer to all the peoples and cultures who live to the East of our cultural historic homeland as "Orientals," which is to say, as "Easterners?"

Only in PC-coocoo-land is this an insult; only in PC-coocoo-land is it an insult when *we* do what *all* persons and cultures do and have always done: refer to other persons and cultures by reference and in relation to oneself or one's own culture.

Conservatives realize that there is no "center of the world" -- which is to say, that *all* cultures and persons are equally the center of the world. "Liberals" believe that there really is a "center of the world" ... just that it never can be "the West" (even as they tend to believe that their own precious snowflake self is at the center of all time and space).


"People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe ..."

This is nowhere near the truth.

People have the freedom to believe any damned fool thing they wish to believe. But they do not have the right to do so; rather, people have the duty to do their best to ensure that their beliefs are true.


"... and I don’t think that’s a “PC” sentiment."

Then you really ought to think more carefully.

If people really had the right to believe any damned fool thing they wished to believe, than *any* attempt to correct their false beliefs, even so mild as to mention that there are other views on the subject, would be a violation of their rights as human beings.

That sounds familiar of late, doesn't it?


"The Founders seemed to think it was the way to go."

The Founders make me look like a cuddly kitty cat.


"And I’m definitely not calling anyone a slave to a demon."

If you will not speak the truth, no matter who pouts and/or throws a tantrum, then the "liberals" -- who are merely inconsistent leftists -- will always be able to roll you. On any matter. And you will be part of the problem which is destroying us.

Islam is all about making oneself -- and, of course, forcing one's neighbor to be -- a Slave of Allah; hell! that's what is at the heart of the words 'Islam' and 'Muslim' -- "surrender (to Allah)," in the sense of "surrender abjectly or we shall kill you!"

And Allah is not God, though he claims to be. And his religion is demonic, whether or not there is a being behind the name.

Why in the hell do you bother with the content of that last link if you are not willing to speak the truth of the matter? Is this just the "conservative" version of the "Free Tibet!" bumper-stickers that "liberals" feels so moral and righteous about when they put them on their Prius (even as they condemn anyone who dares to speak the truth about the regime in China)?

It really get's my goat

It really get's :-0 my goat that more and more people persist in using the apostrophe inappropriately, and worse, that they positively bristle at correction: "How *dare* you tell me my usage is incorrect! What are you, some sort of snob!? Don't you know the is no 'right' way to write a language!!?"


For example: "who's" and "it's"

The words 'who's' and 'it's' are not the genitive/possessive case for 'who' and 'it,' they are contractions for 'who is' and 'it is' -- the genitive/possessive for these words are 'whose' and 'its.'

Oddly enough, the persons who write 'who's' and 'it's' when they ought to write 'whose' and 'its' almost invariably write 'whose' and 'its' when they ought to write 'who's' and 'it's.'

And, of course, such persons will nearly always improperly use '~'s' in a vain attempt to indicate the plural ... while failing or declining to properly use '~'s' to indicate the genitive/possessive.

And, how many times has one seen, for example, 'cities' or 'countries' where the correct usage is 'city's' or 'country's;' and from the same person 'city's' or 'country's' where the correct usage 'cities' or 'countries'?

It's a plague! <<-- that, by the way, is correct;
Its a plague! <<-- that is incorrect.


I have a nastly little secret, Gentle Reader: I have a hard time reading the writing -- or respecting the thoughts -- of those who wontonly misuse the apostrophe, even if I otherwise like (or, in some cases love) the person.

Simply Amazing

Human Events (Connie Hair): House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’

Hmmm

And again, I say, "Hmmm."

Could it actually be that the highly esteemed, at least in his own mind, Wm Vallicella reads a "punk" like me? Though, as I didn't invent the phrase "undocumented Democrat" (*), he may well have picked it up elsewhere. Or, even if I had invented it, he might have invented it himself independently.

Still, it's an interesting bemusement.

(*) I suspect that I got the phrasa from Mark Steyn; and I'm sure Mr Vallicella also reads Steyn. I mean, who doesn't?

Or, on second thought, I might have picked it up from an Ann Coulter throw-away line.

Still, regardless of just where the phrase originated, I think we conservatives would do well to use it, and frequently; and to especially use it when the "liberals" deploy their preferred cynical euphemisms for the illegal alien invaders of our nation.

This is the blueprint the political elites of Mexico are following; but they're wise enough to know that in their case it must be accomplished in slow motion.

Because they can!

THIS is the perfection of the intersection of "liberalism" and bureaucracy

Remember, boys and girls, the Prime Directive of bureaucracy is:
1) increase the scope and power of the bureaucracy, no matter what petty levels to which one must aspire to do so;
2) increase the number of bureaucrats in the bureaucracy -- for this is an important metric for measuring the importance and scope of the bureaucracy, and of the power of those who rule it;
3) increase the money paid to the bureaucrats in the bureaucracy -- for this is also an important metric for measuring the importance of the bureaucracy.