House of Eratosthenes

It bothers me seeing people argue with each other to the point where they get genuinely angry with each other. At least, when there’s little to no cause for the anger. And it bothers me when people start fighting over a baby. Can’t help notice lately that the social media has become, in some places, glowing-red-hot with “my side is better than yours” arguments about whether we need to pay attention to William and Kate’s new baby, now third in line for the British throne, which is something I consider to be a personal preference and therefore a personal decision. I really don’t give a rip. But people who do care, even the ones who care minute-to-minute and care passionately, aren’t hurting me. True, it’s crushingly boring and I can feel my life force being sucked out, I think, when they start talking about what Kate wore when she held the baby. But I can change the channel. It’s something they watch that makes them happy. Let them be.

But I think I’ve figured out why people get so upset on both sides. The don’t-give-a-rat’s-ass people, like me, are the ones starting it by saying things like “our forefathers fought a revolutionary war so we wouldn’t have to give a shit about the baby.” There is both truth and falsehood in this, along with an ugly implication. The truth is, well, it’s true…the falsehood is that someone is forcing everyone else to pay attention to the baby. That is not the case. Again, turn the dial. Leave the room. It’s like the latest Barbra Streisand farewell tour.

And the ugly implication is that, by paying attention to the baby, royal-philes are somehow betraying the memory of the hardy young men at Valley Forge. They aren’t…they’re just fixating on something…but I think when they see this “fought in a revolution so we wouldn’t have to pay attention” meme over and over, that’s the message they’re picking up and they react to it none too kindly. And so, we fight. And it’s silly because there isn’t too much to this apart from a disagreement about preferences and priorities. There’s very little that sets it apart from a choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

However, it is that little bit upon which I would like to focus.

There is something important to be pointed out in the “fought a revolution so we wouldn’t have to care” thing. I often notice when people argue, if we study it a bit we find they aren’t really arguing about the true source of the disagreement, and that is probably the case here. We are arguing about the conflict of visions, between the constrained and the unconstrained.

The thing that is not pointed out, is this: Humans who live in civilized societies, have a hunger for, and a fascination with, equality; the idea that anybody can grow up to become anything. Humans who live in civilized societies have a hunger for, and a fascination with, inequality as well. Deep down, we are programmed to admire the caste system. It’s in our wiring. In fact, we have to do some work to get away from it. Here in America, we consider that our patriotic duty. The “don’t care about the baby” types have completed that intellectual struggle, and they perceive, wrongly in some cases, that the “look at that pretty dress Kate’s wearing” people have not done this and therefore have betrayed their birthright.

It has been made a sensitive issue now that we are living in the age of Obama. All Americans with common sense and a decent, working, long-term memory, have seen how this glorification of living idols can mask over — and perhaps encourage — glaring and dangerous defects in judgment on the part of those living idols, or on the part of their peers or subordinates. For those who lack this working long-term memory, there are the stories of Bob Filner and Anthony Weiner. More democrat men tripping over their own dicks. Twice in rapid succession, we get to repeat the Kennedy/Clinton/Hart/Edwards/Spitzer waltz, with the moves now committed to muscle memory: Contrite apologies in front of banks of microphones, with the wife dutifully standing by…which everyone knows are just apologies for having been caught. We also know the wife isn’t standing by out of love, she’s standing by as a business partner, because with democrat politicians that’s what the wife is. And, since the unfaithful husband is a democrat, there will be the expected and obligatory defiant refusals to step down. The democrats can’t fail standards they never had in the first place. Oh yeah, and “blah blah blah performance in public office blah blah blah private life.”

It’s the unconstrained vision, because the narrative that shapes up is that this guy, because he is who he is, is going to get away with something that would get you, me, and any other ordinary mortal canned without a second thought. The trouble with this is: This thing that sets the whole situation apart, that the guy is who he is, is an unknown — we don’t know who he is, really. Not that way. Bill Clinton was President of the United States, sure, but does that mean all United States presidents should be able to get away with this behavior? Clearly not. Not all former congressmen aspiring to be Mayor of New York should get away with it. It’s the name-recognition that will get them sprung. The brand name. So why is there a brand name? What did these people do? Nobody can say. There was a narrative shaping up that Bill Clinton was in the process of saving the economy…but that’s something democrats say about all their guys, no matter what. And anyway, Bill Clinton knows as much about how an economy actually works, as your dog knows about replacing your car’s valve cover gasket. Most of the democrats saying this knew it was a bunch of nonsense.

The truth is, the democrats won’t resign in the face of these scandals because resignation is an action that has to be taken by the guilty, and when you’re a democrat, all actions are calculated according to their effect on the movement. Now perhaps if resignation had a beneficial effect on the movement, they’d think about it. But that isn’t going to happen, because their movement has to do with tearing standards down, not establishing new ones or standing by the ones that were already there. Their movement is all about winning arguments unconditionally, whether you should or shouldn’t. It’s about being on the side that ultimately prevails, so you can force others to do things your way. “Make things the way we want them to be,” as Anakin Skywalker said — as he was turning to the Dark Side.

This is why the “pure” Americans look with such distaste on the starry-eyed royal-watchers — who are over here. They see people who aren’t quite getting into the Spirit of 1776. They see their countrymen elevating mere mortals to the dais of divinity. And that dais is something to be despised; I can see this side of it, myself. Because it seems to be a constant in human history that when we create new identities for these famous mortal individuals, placing them on such a height that George Washington refused to ascend, even when his peers implored him to — that lofty height where, the moment you make a mistake or commit a crime, it ceases to be a mistake or crime because you’re the mega-awesome guy who did it — the privilege is always abused. That apex-of-the-pyramid guy starts making more of these mistakes he’s allowed to make.

America is supposed to be an experiment in which we just don’t have that going on. We have lately been betraying the experiment. President Obama is just a part of the problem. All these philandering politicians are part of it too — not all of them are democrats — they somehow think they’ve accomplished something great and grand that should give them a pass for these character defects. But if anyone ever asked them what it was that they had accomplished, they wouldn’t have an answer. They’d go with the “worked really hard” homina homina stuff. In other words, this is fast disintegrating into what we were supposed to have been avoiding, a nation of men and not laws, a caste system, a culture of aristocratic entitlement. “Mistakes were made…my wife and I have worked it out…I’m contrite, but DEFIANT!! GRRRR!!!” Please. Please. At this point, I find it quite boring, and not one bit exciting or titillating. The drama is wasted on me.

Just like I’m bored by the comparison between Kate Middleton’s clothes and Princess Di’s clothes when William was born. The difference is that with Kate Middleton, as far as I know I’m looking at someone more-or-less decent, who deserves no grief, instead deserves privacy (and like many royals, probably desires more than she’ll ever be able to have). With the latest philandering democrat males, I’m looking at scumbags who just want power, managed to get power, and don’t want to give it up. Just a bunch of Anakin Skywalkers after the fall, without the breather suit and movie-bad-guy coolness. I’m looking at something worse than faithlessness or power-craziness when I’m looking at them; worse than sociopathy; I’m looking at mediocrity. In my world, a dozen of them wouldn’t get you a cup of coffee, and it isn’t just because I disagree with their politics. And in my world, a cup of coffee doesn’t cost you what it costs at Starbuck’s, I’m talking donut shop prices.

I forget who it was but shortly after Weiner resigned he speculated that Weiner would be back. And his theory, now true, was that Weiner has never had a REAL job. (Being elected isn’t a real job). He was and is unqualified to do anything else. He has no other choice but to run for another office. That’s sad on so many levels.

And his Hamas connected partner/opportunist wife is just as pathetic. One has to wonder what exactly would it take for her to leave? Pedophilia, bestiality…kidnapping, raping and holding some poor woman his basement for ten years?…

Just love how the Left is suppose to represent women’s lib. When in actuality they are the exact freakin’ opposite. (Pay for your damn contraceptives!)They’re playing the Tammy Wynette song to perfection. They’re not only standing by their men, they’re throwing away any semblance to actual women’s independence. Sarah Palin is the epitome of a strong independent woman. Next to these pathetic losers of estrogen , she’s the Queen of the All Womanhood. And they attack her for…not being there for he children. Oy vey.

As far as the royal baby, what’s been really fascinating is the degree of how many English not only embrace being subjects but actually revel in it. Oh sure, the British monarchy is basically a figure head position but still, if it was so repulsive, like we figured out 237 yrs ago, they’d not only not pay attention to this sort of crap, they’d get rid of the royals altogether. No?

Now, where’s Aunt Pippa? Let’s see that fine ass.
- tim | 07/24/2013 @ 12:12
hat lofty height where, the moment you make a mistake or commit a crime, it ceases to be a mistake or crime because you’re the mega-awesome guy who did it

Am I the only guy who gets creeped out by the fact that Our Betters are constantly making these sorts of arguments in favor of other people?

In my book, that’s just weird. I can see making typical liberal arguments for my own benefit. I can do whatever the hell I want, because I’m a superior person. Rules don’t apply to me, because I’m a liberal. I care so much more than you; give me free stuff. (I even in a perverse way admired that slut Sandra Fluke for exactly that — she didn’t want to shell out $9 for her own birth control; she thought you should pay it; and she straight-up said so. That’s awful, but it’s integrity, the only integrity liberals have).

They don’t do that, though. It’s always Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner who can get away with that stuff. If somebody they knew personally did that — Nancy Clinton in accounts receivable or Bill Weiner in HR — they would not only join the chorus screaming for the offender’s head, they’d get nasty about it in that truly spectacular liberal way, no matter what the person’s political beliefs. They themselves follow all the stupid pettifogging rules they elect these people to make… and then break, with impunity.

Isn’t that odd?
- Severian | 07/25/2013 @ 06:00
Thomas Sowell has something to say about all this:

Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as “the self anointed.” Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.

Of course that doesn’t explain all of it. In the rational world in which you and I try to live, given that there’s a person, an objective of perfection, and a premise that this person is closer to the objective than you or I, that person can jolly well prove it by following these rules that are supposed to mean so much, especially if he supported them (and/or wrote them). If he fails at that, it opens up a real question that maybe, far from being further along this avenue of progress toward perfection, he might even need to play a bit of catch-up.

But, as we saw with Bill Clinton, his “bimbo eruption” troubles seemed to be just additional evidence of his mega-awesomeness, as if any more were ever needed.
- mkfreeberg | 07/25/2013 @ 06:21
That’s exactly it, though — they’re determined to prove that Bill Clinton is super mega awesome.

What does that accomplish?

I understand the appeal of liberalism, I truly do — you get to proclaim to all the world that you’re a caring, deep, intelligent, sexy, thoughtful person without the slightest shred of evidence of care, depth, intelligence, sex appeal, or thought. But why is it so important that Bill Clinton — or Hillary, or Obama, or Elizabeth Warren, or whomever — be all those things and then some? In my experience, your average liberal is far more likely to react with blistering outrage to an offense against any one of these pseudo-deities than he is to attacks on his own person. Call your average liberal a dumbass and yeah, he’ll sneer at you, but call Elizabeth Warren a dumbass in that liberal’s hearing and he’ll start frothing at the mouth with white-hot outrage.

Weird, no?
- Severian | 07/25/2013 @ 11:37
[…] at Morgan’s there’s a discussion of those people who […]
- Why Isn’t This Creepy? | Rotten Chestnuts | 07/25/2013 @ 14:04
[…] ERATOSTHENES– Filner, Weiner and the Fresh Prince; Nancy Pelosi: Creep Enabler; Big Government: What Does […]
- Steynian 482rd | Free Canuckistan! | 07/25/2013 @ 16:30

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Filner, Weiner and the Fresh PrinceWednesday, July 24th, 2013

Filner, Weiner and the Fresh Prince
Wednesday, July 24th, 2013