Tragic incoherence: as lies are the root of evil, this lie must lead to something awful

Victor Davis Hanson: The Tragic Incoherence of the NFL Protests – “It has become a sort of reflex to object to the National Football League’s players’ bended knee/sitting through the National Anthem—while also conceding that their complaints have merit.”

But do they?

To answer that question, one would have to know precisely what the protests are about. But so far the various reasons advanced are both confused and without much merit. That is why the players will eventually stand for the anthem before their tragic incoherence loses them both their fans and their jobs with it.

The Left often does not pay much attention to such facts—though it grows angry when others do.

Were the players then frustrated about general racial disparities in landscapes beyond their own privileged positions? That larger question of why African-Americans have not yet statically achieved the same level of education, income, and family stability as the majority is more complex.

The exegeses usually break down politically.

The point is not to dismiss the unique historical ordeal of African-Americans, but rather to suggest that a majority of Americans does not any longer believe race is destiny, much less that being “white” governs one’s fate, especially at a time when intermarriage and integration are at an all-time high, and when the white working classes are increasingly disengaged from and at odds with the bicoastal white elite class. In other words, working-class white people often have much more in common with working-class blacks than they do with elite whites.

The idea of multimillionaire professional athletes—as part of the 0.01 percent of the nation’s income earners, in a meritocratic but quite un-diverse league made up of 75 percent black players—refusing to stand for the National Anthem out of anger at their country, racial unfairness, the president, or history is nonsensical.

Jazz Shaw: That FBI report is making the Ferguson Effect hard to ignore – “one disturbing trend can be found by matching up locations recording rising murder rates with the homes of of widespread riots and anti-police protests.”

Dennis Prager: The Greatest Libel since the Blood Libel – “America does not oppress minorities or women, and it’s a lie to say so.”

That America today oppresses minorities and women is as far from the truth as was the notion that Jews used Christian blood for matzo.

Last year, ESPN’s Paul Finebaum said, on air: “This country has issues, but this country is not oppressing black people.” After being widely denounced, two days later Finebaum felt it necessary to issue this abject apology: “I could spend the rest of my life trying to talk my way out of it, but I can’t. I blew it. I simply did not have a good grasp of the situation. I know better. I’ve lived in this country. I see what is going on all across the country from North to South, East to West and I have no excuse. . . . All I can say is that I made a terrible mistake. In trying to express a feeling that I probably — not probably — I had no right to express.”

Such examples are endless. America oppresses blacks, Latinos, women, gays, and everyone else who is not a white, male, heterosexual Christian. It is a great lie. But it is the dominant narrative of the society. And, as lies are the root of evil, this lie must lead to something awful.

the charge that America is a land of oppression has utterly cheapened the word “oppression.” The truly oppressed of the world will have to find a new word to express their condition. If blacks and women in America are oppressed, what word shall we use to describe the condition of Christians in Iraq or Egypt? Of gays in Iran? Of women in much of the Muslim world? Of the Untouchables in India? Kurds in Turkey?

The Jews survived the Blood Libel. But America might not survive the American Libel. While the first Libel led to the death of many Jews, the present Libel might lead to the death of a civilization — indeed, the least oppressive ever created.

Alicia Colon: The Consequences of Media Weaponized Hatred – “What is it about social media venues like Facebook and Twitter that make people express vile, despicable comments?”

Yes, it is true that many CW fans lean right, probably vote Republican, probably believe in the second amendment and may own guns, as is their right.

They are also loathed by most Hollywood celebrities and are mocked nightly by late show hosts like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel.

This antipathy has flooded the airwaves since last November when Donald Trump was elected president.

The venom is unprecedented and like many conservatives I have felt its wrath personally in my own family.

The inability by many Democrats to accept what 63 million Americans voted for last year has divided this country as painfully as during the Civil War.

The mainstream media agree with failed candidate Hillary Clinton when she described those who supported Donald trump: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

The Weekly Standard: Supreme Double Standard – “The effort to discredit Neil Gorsuch is disingenuous garbage.”

These protests—and we assume there will be others—are intended to discredit Justice Gorsuch and so provide a feasible excuse for Democrats to block any second Supreme Court nomination by this president.

We hope the tendentiousness of this complaint will appear as plainly in the future as it does now.

If Gorsuch’s critics are searching for improper remarks made by Supreme Court justices, they ought to consult Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s open hostility to the current president.

The main point of Gorsuch’s address, meanwhile—that self-governance requires an ability to “treat others as our equals, as persons, with the courtesy and respect each person deserves, even when we disagree”—seems acutely relevant.

Allahpundit: Pew: Media coverage of Trump through first 60 days vastly more negative than last three presidents – “A fine companion piece to the factoid Bob Schieffer dropped yesterday on “Face the Nation,” that one out of every five reporters in the U.S. now lives in either New York, Washington, or Los Angeles. In 2004, claims Schieffer, it was one out of every eight reporters. The bubble’s getting thicker.” There is bias showing even in this report. Allahpundit ignores what VDH noted in his essay cited above. The crude, rude, and vulgar isn’t “a degree unusual” if you take an objective comparison to Obama or Clinton yet Allahpundit’s bias blinds him to that.

Again, the obvious counterpoint is that leadership and character are a perpetual elephant in the room with Trump and therefore the coverage should logically track that. When you elect a guy whose deep thoughts about “p***y-grabbing” were preserved forever on the “Access Hollywood” tape, who’s known for Twitter-farting whatever grievance happens to be bugging him at any given moment, who seems invested to a degree unusual even for politicians in his own image and perceptions of his “strength,” you’re going to end up with more stories about the presidential persona than you would if, say, Ted Cruz were president. Even so, Trump was dealing with Big Stuff early on after being sworn in — overturning ObamaCare, filling a SCOTUS vacancy, and feeling his way towards a nationalist foreign policy that had the potential to break with decades of American fo-po consensus. Notwithstanding his essential Trumpiness, 69/31 seems out of whack. Go figure.

The New York Sun: Aldean’s Army – “The smell of cordite and the stench of blood — to use the famous phrase — was still over Las Vegas when a reference to Aldean’s Army showed up in dispatches.” It is a shaming of those who kneel for nonsense by example of what is true courage and character.

We first read it in James Freeman’s column — “Americans Under Fire” — in the online Wall Street Journal, which linked to an editorial of earlier today in Chicago Tribune. It referred to the courage of those who had come to hear country crooner Jason Aldean, who has long described his fans as the Aldean Army.

An apt metaphor. Their courage under fire will be talked about for years to come — even if we have so far witnessed on the internet only glimpses captured on cell phones.

No doubt in coming days we will start to learn more about the dark side of the story, the killer’s descent into whatever madness came over him. What a contrast to the thousands of ordinary Americans who, when fired upon, sprang to help one another and inspired their countrymen in a time of terror.

David Harsanyi: When You Politicize Shootings You Make It Harder To Find Solutions – “There are two kinds of social media reactions to horrifying events such as the Las Vegas shooting. One of them makes debate impossible.”

There are generally two kinds of social media reactions to heart-wrenching events like yesterday’s mass shooting in Las Vegas: one is to offer prayers and sympathy to the victims and their families, and the other is to reflexively lash out in anger at those who don’t share your political agenda. Although emotionally satisfying, one of these responses makes it nearly impossible for the country to engage in any kind of useful discussion moving forward.

The more horrifying realization is that once a person has lost his moral bearings the killing part is pretty easy.

Maybe Paddock evaded or abused some gun law. Maybe it can be tightened. But those who reflexively call for more restrictive gun laws without even knowing how or why Paddock got his hands on guns — or what kind of firearms he used — give themselves away. Those who conflate automatic and semi-automatic guns also give themselves away.

Those in the press who mislead the public on all these issues give themselves away, as well.

ideological stridency and partisanship feeds into the distrust gun owners have towards politicians. For many of them, gun laws feel a lot like incremental steps to undermine access. It’s difficult to disagree with this perception when you read and listen to the rhetoric of most liberal gun-control groups. The only thing this kind of partisanship creates is a spike in legal ownership.

David Post: This American madness – it a case study of the American Libel and it sounds so nice. Where does he err? One is that he obsesses on “a military-grade automatic assault rifle and plenty of ammunition.” Another is his perceptions about who fits into the ‘two kinds of reactions’ described above by Harsanyi.

I know the arguments for why we permit people to own weapons of this kind, but none of them seem remotely plausible or persuasive to me. Whatever one thinks of the scope and nature of the rights bestowed by the Second Amendment, the idea that the Constitution renders us completely powerless to limit the sale, distribution and ownership of weapons that are this efficient at mowing down large numbers of people — and that have no other real or legitimate purpose — is surely a symptom of a kind of political insanity.

He shows that he does not know the arguments nor does he understand the U.S. Constitution nor does he know about existing gun control laws. This is gross ignorance and that is a bad place to be in expressing opinions if you want those opinions to be worthy of any consideration.

This is particularly disturbing, because there seems to be a lot of hate out there these days, and hate plus military-grade weaponry is a truly terrifying combination. It’s not confined to either side of the political divide; people don’t seem to disagree so much as despise these days.

A critical flaw here is the ‘both sides do it’ fallacy and it ignores the Boston bombing or the recent vehicle assaults in Europe in the obsession about guns.

Of all the things I dislike about the Trump presidency — and it’s a long list — his calculated strategy to make us all hate each other more than we already do is perhaps the most unforgivable. It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: Of course President Trump didn’t somehow “cause” the Las Vegas shooting to happen, and he isn’t responsible for this massacre. But he feeds off our hatred for our fellow citizens and stokes it up, because he believes — possibly correctly — that it is to his political advantage to do so, whatever costs it may impose on our social and political discourse and institutions.

This one needs a compare and contrast to the response Trump offered to that offered by Clinton and others. Just who is it that is promulgating hate? Who is it pushing politics into a tragedy as a first action? Note also the “long list” and consider the logical fallacy.

The National Football League/national-anthem controversy was the latest dispiriting example. He found an applause line to fire up his base of supporters

See above from VDH about just how disingenuous and falsely based this particular assertion really is.

I look forward to the day when we once again have a president who actually believes it is part of his or her job to help us get over our divisions, not to insert hot pokers into the wounds from existing divisions. Self-government is pretty much impossible if we all think that those with different views on difficult questions are all SOBs.

Here Post shows that his perceptions are not based on what was said but rather what he imagines. He shows no awareness of the attempts to shut down political debate even to the point of beating up people that has occurred recently. The fact that he is so far from reality and so resistant to any effort to express intellectual integrity is the real tell on the problems with divisiveness and political discord.

Comments are closed.