Rand Paul appears to have stepped up to the plate on a Levin and McCain effort at vilification of big corporate interests using their tax code within the law but in a way they don’t like. See the post at Powerline Blog. It’s the left going after the feed corn – again.
Archive for politics
“I will frankly admit I find it increasingly difficult to share the same planet as leftists. That’s because I believe they are all insane. They say such things as “We all belong to the state” or “It takes a village to raise a child” with a straight face. One might say that a North Korean belongs to the state, but an American?
To tell the truth, the only way I have found to cope with liberals is by ridiculing them every chance I get.”
Burt Prelutsky then goes on the describe many phenomena he sees and his Coping Mechanisms. He touches the Gonell late term abortion examples, the CBC looking for an ‘any but white’ host for an afternoon TV show for kids, the recent study about hospital treatment costs, the Benghazi situation, and the high esteem in which certain politicians are held despite being deep in political scandal muck. There is much to puzzle over.
“politicians and judges constantly misapply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in an effort to rid the public square of religious references. Did our forefathers really intend to make an invocation of God before supper roll call at Virginia Military Institute unconstitutional? Is an Air Force commander announcing a base chapel program the same thing as the government establishing a religion? Who better to interpret the Constitution than those who wrote it and passed it into law?”
The instruction used to be to hate the sin but love the sinner. No more it seems. Emmett Tyrell describes why he thinks the left really, really hates us. Us, of course, is anyone not in sync with the left. “They were always irritable. In fact, I wonder which came first: the irritable disposition or the crazy ideological desiderata. At any rate, here we are in 2013, and boy, do they hate us.”
It is very difficult to have an intellectually honest debate with someone whose emotions distort reality and distract from reason.
Ann Coulter does the background work to lay it on the table.
“You can tell the conservatives liberals fear most because they start being automatically referred to as “discredited.” Ask Sen. Ted Cruz. But no one is called “discredited” by liberals more often than the inestimable economist John Lott, author of the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.”
If you want names and numbers, check out why AC calls Lott America’s most feared economist. The tactics described are common and nearly indicative of which side of the political spectrum one chooses. One one side, careful research that stands up to scrutiny and on the other, name calling and manufactured results.
It appears that the Sacramento Bee editor defends Rick Perry “BOOM!” cartoon and, in doing so, illustrates the tactic of doubling down on a dishonest assertion and rationalizing that dishonesty by diversion. The rationalization is to assert that the objection to the cartoon is ” being disrespectful for the victims of this tragedy” and a personal assault on the governor’s “disregard for worker safety.” Those assertions personalize the issue, create a straw man, and completely ignores the actual message of the actual cartoon.
The FAA’s attempt to punish the public with the Sequestor, an idea the administration put up for budget compromise, is one example. The fertilizer plant explosion in Texas is providing another. See Democrats try to cash in on Texas Fatalities.
The attempt here is to brand economic success as a failure in order to defeat the idea that pro-business government, like in Texas, is bad while anti-business government, like in California, is good. This is related to the ‘schools need more money’ mantra that has been going on for years. The ignorance, intentional or otherwise, involved in pushing such ideas is (or should be) astounding as a phenomena itself.
OK: Why should government money go for science, anyway? Sandwalk picked up the chain with Why Do We Do Science?
“Phill Plait of Bad Astronomy hits the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned [Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member Gets Schooled on Science Funding]. His defense of science should be the primary talking point whenever anyone questions the value of learning about the natural world.”
The idea is a good one, the straw man doesn’t help it. The idea:
“We research the Universe around us because we are curious, inquisitive, intelligent animals. We don’t know what snail mating habits might teach us. That’s why we study it. Maybe it’ll lead into insight on how animals behave, or a new chemical secreted during the process, or to insight on the environment where snails live. Maybe none of that.”
The staw man? It’s those evil conservatives.
“It’s an uphill climb, to be sure; the forces of antiscience are strong and loud. One of them is the Wall Street Journal, which frequently publishes ridiculous OpEds baselessly denying global warming.”
Of course, they couldn’t stick to just “If you don’t engage in the kind of research that Conservatives want, then you won’t get funded” but have to identify a few sample villains with generic topics of dear interest to ideologs – climate change and creationism in these samples. The meme here is also significant because it expresses the anti-capitalism ethos in another straw man. That is that the rationalization for science research is strictly a matter of return on investment. These are characteristics to watch for as they indicate that it is not suppporting ones’ point of view that is paramount but rather demeaning the opposition. That indicates the intellectual integrity is not a priority, either.
John Hinderaker asks Why Aren’t More People Repelled by the Left? The latest episode is about the dancing on the grave of a former Prime Minister.
“Margaret Thatcher’s death has been the latest occasion for the Left to show its true stripes. All across the U.K., there have been demonstrations–vulgar at best, and violent at worst. In Bristol, lefties celebrating a Thatcher “death street party” started fires, destroyed property and battled police”
“Here in the U.S., the last similar display from the Left was the Occupy Wall Street movement, but liberal violence and general hatefulness have a long and consistent history.”
“I don’t get it. Why aren’t more voters repelled by the constant parade of vulgarity, hate and violence that characterizes modern liberalism?”
it does seem strange but then, there are many who deny the evidence – they are the ‘both sides do it’ camp and will go to dellusional lengths to try to pretend it is so.
Three articles at Frontpage Mag point out how the first ammendment is being assaulted. ACLU Sues 70-Year-Old Christian Flower Shop Owner for Refusing to Participate in Gay Wedding follows on a previous incident where a photographer was required to do business with clients his religion refused to recognize.
“Homosexual activists are not looking to live and let live. They are out to force their way on everyone else at any cost. Even shamelessly going after a 70-year-old woman who was only following her faith.”
The Boy Scouts are another target. This example is California, again. California Democrats Target Boy Scouts for Trying to Prevent Sexual Abuse
“Can anyone really claim with a straight face that keeping men who have same-sex fetish issues out of a position where they can supervise boys won’t stop a single case of sexual abuse?”
This time the idea is to deny nonprofit exemptions if an organization doesn’t toe the government’s religious edicts.
Then there’s a book review: Persecuted on All Sides: Christians in the Modern World (Amazon affiliate link)
“The authors chronicle in detailed fashion all manner of religious repression against Christians, such as laws inhibiting conversion to Christianity, state destruction of unapproved churches, torture of Christian dissidents, and often socially sanctioned vigilante violence.”
The reason that the U.S. Constitution has a prohibition about laws establishing religion has much to do with the sort of effort that can be seen in the attempts to establish such laws. Despite the dimissal of ‘bible thumpers’, the matters of morality and ethics do hinge on established moral codes and the Bible is the pre-eminent source. It is one thing to tolerate deviations from that code but it is entirely another to foist participation in such deviations on those who do hold the Christian ethos dear.
The issues today are just like kids pushing the line to see how far they can get. For the most part, things like murder and theft are considered a bit too far (except in certain social endeavors). Things like animal sacrifice are a bit too wierd. That is why issues like changing the definition of marriage are at the forefront. That can be assaulted on in terms of all sorts of events from small impact laws to subtle changes in established concepts.
The sad part is that this is a ‘been there done that’ why can’t people learn from history episode.
“While homeownership is all very well, Pushing ownership on people who cannot afford it is a policy destined to backfire. In a particularly cruel twist, policies designed to make homeownership affordable leave those who can least afford it worse off, and inflict greater damage on the more modest neighborhoods where these families reside.”
You’d think that so soon after seeing what bad policy can do that a lesson would be learned. But no, the idea of free mansions for all is quite attractive. GHEI describes Reinflating the housing bubble, Loosened borrowing rules set the stage for another bust. Persistence might be a virtue but continually repeating the same thing and expecting different results is something else.
“The reality – for better or worse – is that that no one in America takes treason very seriously anymore, and hasn’t for a long time. No individual has been charged with treason in the United States in fifty years, not since Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally were tried for broadcasting enemy propaganda to American troops during WWII. … So let’s not pretend that there is any real threat in the word “treason” capable of chilling criticism of current foreign policy.”
“The vitriolic and personal attacks on the President’s integrity and morality, while the war was only months old went beyond legitimate criticism and amounted to an effort to sabotage the war itself in the hopes that a failed war would unseat the President in the elections in November. These personal attacks were incitements to the American public to distrust and hate their President in the middle of a war.”
David Horowitz explains Why We Were in Iraq and the history and methods of the political opposition. The U.S. has abandoned victories before and the results were not pretty.
“Ultimately, we should spend less time talking about whether nominees’ views are “out of the mainstream” and more time focusing on whether they are correct. For the most part, presidents of both parties are likely to nominate judges who are within the mainstream of their side of the political spectrum, and that mainstream is also likely to enjoy considerable public support (even if not always a majority). But when one side’s mainstream is deeply at odds with the other’s, that suggests that one or both are also badly misguided.”
Ilya Somin thinks that Judicial Nominations and Competing Constitutional “Mainstreams” should be more about judges who are correct.
“there is a big difference between distinguishing between nominees with right and wrong views and distinguishing between those who are inside and outside of the mainstream. A mainstream view of the Constitution can be badly wrong. Indeed, if mainstream liberals are right about constitutional interpretation, that implies that the mainstream conservative view is badly wrong, and vice versa. Similarly, an extremist view can be correct.”
The measure of this is in the split on decisions. The fact that there are so many decisions split 5:4 or even 6:3 indicates that being correct is either overly-difficult or not really in the picture. That is an underlying fundamental law problem.
“Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.”
“Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.”
Trevor Burus says that The gun debate is a culture debate and explains why he thinks so.
Another seasoned infantryman weighs in on Seven Myths About “Women in Combat”.
“Pity the truthful leader who attempts to hold to standards based on realistic combat factors, and tells truth to power. Most won’t, and the others won’t survive.”
The myths are that the issue is about women in combat when it is really about women in the infantry, that combat has changed in substance, that the proper measure is just physical capability standards, that infantry provides a path for promotion, that it’s a civil rights issue, and that it’s just fair. Each is summarily dismissed.
yet the myths persist as they are held with a fierce abandonment of reality by certain folks for reasons that just aren’t that clear.
“Given how easily information is available to those who want it in an age of 24/7 cable news and the Internet, it’s hard to imagine what new messaging technique or device will get people to pay attention who clearly don’t want to. Scarier still is the prospect that people know and don’t care.”
“Clearly, something is missing in a critical mass of American voters when assaults on our interests and security abroad arouse no righteous anger either at the perpetrators or the politicians who caused the attacks and then tried to misdirect the citizens about the real causes for partisan electoral advantage. Something is missing when voters shrug away patent lies about oil production, and ignore policies that are hampering an industry that can create jobs and radically change our foreign policy calculus by liberating our energy needs from thug regimes who use our dollars to attack our interests. So what’s missing?”
Bruce Thorton asks: “Where’s the Outrage Over Obama’s Lies?” and encounters a fundamental problem. If there is no interest in intellectual integrity, then what? What do you do? What can you do?
“What is going on in America when the once upon famous description “Banned in Boston” has now morphed into a quasi-religious liberal campaign to ban almost everything, almost everywhere?”
Jeffrey Lord makes a list and wonders about America’s New Theocracy.
“The question is not that liberals are obsessed with banning. They are. The real question is — why? Well beyond the specific person or thing they seek to ban — what compels people in a free society to go out of their way to ban someone or something that a considerable number of their fellow citizens see as part of the warp and woof of American society?
The answer, it appears, derives from the leftist longing for control. And the perceived threat that the object of the ban is seen as posing to that control.”
“And so it goes with the liberal desire to control not just their life but your life. A desire that is now sanctified as the Gospel of Banning.”
Busy bodies can become really dangerous when they elevate their interference in other people’s lives to governance. The trend is to push the line so far that it inhibits growth and development and that is a path to poverty, disease, and unhappiness.
Testimony before a legislative committee can be enlightening not only in the testimony presented but also in the questions asked and the behavior of the committee members. Here’s an example — Democratic Party to Rape Victim: You Were Screwed Anyway!
“She had a permit to carry a pistol but was unarmed when she was attacked. Ms. Collins was treated sensitively by Republicans on the panel, but when the questioning turned to Democratic Sen. Evie Hudak, the Democrats’ war on women was unleashed.
The Democrat ridiculed Ms. Collins, telling her that “statistics are not on your side.” She said that Ms. Collins had rudimentary training in martial arts, yet the rapist overpowered her. She suggested that the rapist would therefore have been able to wrest her gun away and use it against her, if she had been carrying. This is, of course, a non sequitur. A small woman probably can’t outwrestle a large, strong man, but that doesn’t mean that she can’t shoot him. This is why the 19th century Colt .45 was referred to as “the Equalizer.” The Democrats’ treatment of this rape victim is appalling
The most important point here is the woman’s right to choose.”
There is a difference. It can be easily seen and observed. Those who posit that ‘both sides are the same’ are suffering delusions and an inability to make basic discriminations in behavior observations.
Hinderaker provides the closing statement of Senator Jeff Sessions – Plutocrat Jack Lew Is Confirmed, But Sessions Embarrasses Democrats – that explains a lot about that problem in Washington D.C. right now.
“What was notable about the vote was not so much the outcome as the challenge that Senator Jeff Sessions threw down before his Democratic colleagues–try to defend Jack Lew, and if you can’t defend him, don’t vote for him. One thing is for certain: the Democrats had zero interest in trying to defend Lew’s record. They spoke for a total of 17 minutes on his behalf, while Sessions spoke for 2 1/2 hours, in several installments through the day.
Sessions’ closing statement was an eloquent indictment not only of the plutocrat Lew, but of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. It is quoted here in its entirety”
There are some who are trying to get the word out. The Lew vote indicates that not many are hearing anything.
It is posted as Three Reasons Conservatives are Losing the Battle for America. The worry?
“In a word, we are observing the regression of a culture…one that is moving away from sophistication and proudly stepping backward from civilizing attempts. We have seen primitive behavior in our own culture and others: when people look to a label or a skin color as all that need be said about a person; when information from trusted sources of information are grossly biased so only one side is heard or even “exists”; and when physical or administrative violence against people is belittled, laughed at or ignored. It’s a cultural regression and, as the unifying, reassuring legal structures and precepts wither, as information sources become untrustworthy, and as physical and administrative violence worsens, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.”
The three reasons? First is an electorate that is glued to a paradigm with unrelenting fierceness where reality, not matter how blatant, just doesn’t matter. Second is a media cohort that participates in and reinforces this paradigm. Third is the political techniques that create the paradigm for the sake of winning power.
“Political correctness is a capital political concept because: the participants silently acquiesce to its dictates; it’s a self-modulating system where groups of people self-monitor and groom each other into conformity; through unspoken or overt threats of censure, it propagates itself; and, among the willing, it inevitably leads to the control of thought. If we freely restrict our speech to only “allowed” topics, in short order we restrict our thinking as well. In the end there is no more powerful political tool than thought control, which is why mastery and management of information is a central issue in all totalitarian regimes. What has required the overt elimination or forced domination of media outlets in most autocratic regimes has been yielded up easily by our group-think media, who now march along in near lockstep while trumpeting their independence. Political correctness must be a beautiful thing to behold if you’re a politician inclined toward domination.”
There is another item to note in this essay in that it is rational and provides examples. It does not promote ideology but rather an hypothesis supported by reason and measure. That is a counterforce to what he describes and one can only hope such an approach and awareness grows.