Nothing wrong with anything anymore

I'd meant to link to this excellent essay some days ago -- Venerable Beads: Nothing wrong with anything anymore

Why Dems can’t quit Occupy Wall Street

On HotAir: Why Dems can’t quit Occupy Wall Street "... If progressivism stops being a jobs racket, it loses much of its power."

The never-ending distinction battle

Vallicella on 'less' vs 'fewer' "My only quibble is her failure to observe the distinction between 'less' and 'fewer.' Use 'fewer' with count nouns; 'less' with mass terms. I don't have less shovels than you; I have fewer shovels. I need fewer shovels because I have less manure."

It's a crock

By the way, you know those Verizon ads touting their "blazing 4G speed"? Well, it's a crock. It's not just that my Verizon 4G network card service really isn't that fast compared to my DSL service (which happens to be the slowest speed offered), it's that the connectivity I get is so unreliable ... especially now that their 4G network has been expanded into the area(s) in which I use the card. Mind you, I didn't buy the card and service expecting "blazing 4G speed", I bought it expecting reliability.

edit:
I took me over half an hour last night simply to successfully post the above, because my Verizon so-called service kept dropping the connection ... that is, if I was able even to get a connection.

edit2:
I can't begin to tell you how greatly I am learning to despise Verizon, due to the horrible service/connectivity I get. I'm not out in the boondocks, either.

Should the Rich Be Condemned?

Walter Williams: Should the Rich Be Condemned? -- Unfortunately, far too many people do not want to know these truths.

The Cain Mystique

The thought occurs to me that if Herman Cain wins the presidency (or, for that matter, even so much as the Republican nomination), then "liberals" and Democrats may finally be able to tell two black men apart.

On Capital Punishment

In recent days, Victor Reppert has written a number of posts against imposition of capital punishment (see here and here and here and here and here). I have written a number of responses, and intend to post at least one more (which is already mostly composed), and could no doubt write and post much more than I will.

In the meantime …
Serendipitously, I came across this (lengthy) article, which I urge Gentle Reader to read, and which brings out many important points: If the Death Penalty is Constantly Sabotaged, Should We Officially End It?

One of the things touched upon in the above linked article is this: in refusing, on principle (co-called), to execute the murder, one is declaring that the murdered is not a member of one’s society - is not a member of one’s extended family - to whom one has certain natural and inescapable moral obligations by virtue of that social relationship.

When a polity is organized on this anti-moral “principle”, the decision-makers of that polity have destroyed and abrogated its moral legitimacy: no polity which refuses to execute at least the very worst offenders against the persons of the society it rules can long endure - and, it must and will resort to tyranny in attempting to stave off its inevitable collapse. It would be as though the father of a family refused, “on principle”, to justly defend those souls placed in his charge: what sort of family would that be? how long would it last? what sane person would want to be a member of such a family? how can he hold his so-called family together other than by bullying and personal tyranny, seeing that he does not love them?

Of course, the article's conclusion is exactly the result that leftists aim at with their continuous muddying of the waters; and, ultimately, the leftists’ aim is to bring about the collapse of our polity due to moral illegitimacy, as their acts are geared toward making our state unwilling and unable to uphold and deliver justice.

Edit:
And here is yet another relevant post on matters raised; Lawrence Auster: A TERRIBLE INJUSTICE IN TEXAS, AND WHY LIBERALS AREN'T INTERESTED (I do not mean to imply that VR, personally, would be unconcerned with this particular injustice; nor do I think Auster would). The main point here is that “liberals” in general, being mostly puppets of the hard-core leftists (and a tawdry sentimentality), don’t really care about justice and injustice. Oh, sure, “liberals” have “good intentions” … and we all know what excellent pavement those make.

Edit:
And, as chance, or the workings of God, would have it, here is another relevant post by Lawrence Auster: FRENCH GIRL RAPED AND MURDERED BY REPEAT OFFENDER. This one is relevant because it touches upon the “execution is immoral, *because* we can always lock them away for life, instead” objection that “liberals” love to advance.

But, there is no such thing as “throwing away the key”, expect for very special cases, such as a Charles Manson or a Sirhan Sirhan -- that is, for special cases which made special waves in polite “liberal” circles -- and we all know this: the animal who viciously murders you or me may, possibly, perhaps, be sentenced to "life" ... and he will be paroled in twelve or twenty years. This is because, to "liberals", their minds being subsumed by inhuman and inhumane leftism and materialism, a person who has died is no person, doesn't exist, doesn't matter; you know, the same as with persons who are not yet born (and soon, the same as persons who cannot speak for themselves).

If only Victor Reppert could allow himself to understand that knee-jerk opposition to capital punishment is merely another manifestation of the same mind-set and world-view which approves of and pushes for abortion and euthanasia. Knee-jerk opposition to capital punishment, far from being a reflection of one's commitment to life and justice and morality, is an outgrowth of "the culture of death".

It is *because* we value all human lives that we must be willing to execute the murder. In refusing, "on principle", to execute any murderer, we are implicitly asserting that the murderer has the ability and right and moral authority to declare, by his act of murder, who is and is not a member of our society, who is and is not a person, who is and is not real.

'Let Them Eat Bread'

One of my pet peeves is the "Let them eat bread" thing; especially when conservatives (or, those who imagine that they are (*) ) uncritically repeat it.

I recently encountered it, yet again (and from a self-identifying conservative): "Was Maria Antoinette booed only for her dietary recommendations, too?"

1) Marie Antoinette never said, "Let them eat cake";

2) It's doubtful that *any* French queen ever said, "Let them eat cake";

3) Even if one had said it, everyone is misunderstanding the meaning within context as as being some sort of Scarlet O'Hara-esque "Oh, fiddle-de-dee! Why don't they just go get some cake? That's what I'd do", when, in fact, it was something quite different --

France had an ancient law requiring bakers to sell bread made of fine/expensive flour for the same price as bread made of coarse/inexpensive flour whenever they ran out of common bread.

So, the meaning of what Voltaire's unnamed queen allegedly said -- before the time of Antoinette -- is this: well, if the bakers are not supplying the common people with as much regular bread at regular prices as they want to buy, then let the law be enforced and make the bakers sell them expensive bread at common prices. In a word: socialism.


(*) Most American self-identifying conservatives only imagine that they are conservative; they are actually unprincipled "liberals". That is, they accept the premises of present-day leftism/"progressivism" ... they just reject, for now, some of the destinations to which those premises logically, and inevitably, take one.

Republic or Empire?

Jordan179 (on LiveJournal): Class and Politics in America

I'll Raise you a 'Social Credit Movement'

Foxfier at 'Headnoises' links to an article on 'The American Catholic': What Makes Those “Conservative Catholics” Tick?

I counter with the very "socially conservative Catholic" Jeff Culbreath at 'What's Wrong With The World', and his The Social Credit Movement. One can find any number of similar posts by some of the "socially conservative Catholics" at WWWW and at other blogs by "socially conservative Catholics".

Also, consider also this post by the Australian Mark Richardson (who is RC), and consider it in the context of his OP (and of the thread as a whole).

As I've said before, Roman Catholic "intellectuals" tend to be socialists at heart ... and it comes from a serious flaw in Catholicism, The One True Bureaucracy, itself: a distain for individual freedom, and a related hatred for wealth not controlled by bureaucrats or "the right people".