Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Over at Kingjester’s blog, a decent round-up of liberals showing their true colors on the “tolerance” issue. I was just poring through that, and then re-reading the many linked comments and columns and various other epistles involved in Ace’s critique of Sandra Fluke’s latest bit of chicanery. And I have this observation to make…
Well wait, let’s get this out of the way first: Who is the brain-dead idiot who suggested to Ms. Fluke she should include a sentence such as “It is hard to believe we are having this conversation today, the 47th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut…”? Whose idea was this? Hers? What’s the up-side?
Is there someone rising out of bed to greet each new day, thinking, “Oh, this is the whatever-anniversary of such-and-such a Supreme Court decision”? If so, then is this not a rather tricky bunch of balls to be juggling in early June, when SCOTUS tends to decide things? That’s the way it works, isn’t it…dads, grads and Supreme Court decisions. How, exactly, does this change the thought process? Oh, it’s the 47th anniversary of Griswold, so now I am especially offended…
Why do proggies do that? What is that, some kind of social-status thing? Ooh, look at me, I’m extra smart, I know this is the 47th anniversary of…gah. Okay, enough of that. Back to the primary thing here.
My observation is this: I have written before of this perception, occurring to myself and to many others, that seems undeniable — people and institutions self-identifying as “liberal” or “progressive” participate in a certain mindset, one not existing harmoniously with the classical definition of “liberal,” which is moving and rounding a rather sharp corner in recent years. Being a political movement, this mindset seeks approval, but since it is dysfunctional, self-destructive and illogical, it must conceal what it really is in order to gain this approval. As Ace has noted, Sandra Fluke herself has demonstrated this ably by repeatedly using the word “access” to describe a fully-funded entitlement. “Advocates” such as Ms. Fluke, therefore, are trying to secure this “access” which is the fully-funded entitlement; and if the fully-funded entitlement is not fully-funded, then “women” have lost their “access.”
We can gauge the priority of this bit of subterfuge, as appreciated by this late left-wing mindset, by observing the mindset’s behavior when the subterfuge starts to cost it something — namely, the approval of the ideologically non-identifiable, the “moderates.” And I don’t mean by that, the phony-baloney green-party types who say “I’m neither conservative nor liberal” and then line up to vote for democrats. I mean the real ones. The ones who actually decide elections.
It seems, within that camp, there is an emerging consensus driving toward: Heck ya, women should have this “access to contraceptives” but only in the classical sense, not what it means on Planet Sandra Fluke. Simply put, I/we don’t want to have to pay for it. And, no, Gov. Jan Brewer is right, sorry Sandra but there is a religious freedom thing going on here that ought to count for something.
What does the modern hardcore left-wing proggy mindset do? Does it start to split hairs and say “Oh no, we never said that, we said this other thing…” as it has done with other issues? No. It does not. It doubles down. That’s my point; you can learn a lot about how a thinking individual or group values something, by observing what it is willing to sacrifice for it. So, on the issue of “access to contraceptives” translating into full-funding, and genuine old-fashioned oppression against the religious beliefs of individuals and their organizations, we see the proggy mindset digging in and doubling down, even at the expense of the cherished loyalty of the true moderates. They willingly sacrifice the latter for the former…so the former must be important to them. It doesn’t matter if they’re willing to admit it or not. Their actions speak loudly.
What’s the motivation? Hostility toward religion? A desire to weaken the nation and its culture, through a lowering of the birth rate? A pre-meditated attack on personal responsibility and financial solvency of the individuals, through the forceful imposition of a fiat economy? I believe it is a combination of all three. But I’m most interested in the last of the three. Can we just all admit it: They aren’t very much interested in “access,” as in, the contraceptives still cost a nominal amount of money, but the economy is doing so well that you can’t find a woman anywhere who is truly unable to get hold of them when she wants them. That scenario doesn’t interest them at all. They’re looking for a wedge to drive between birth control and trade. Stop this business of products-and-services-for-legal-tender, let’s replace it with our fantasy, the lining up at a kiosk somewhere, receiving a ration, if & only if all the papers are in order. Free stuff good, free trade bad. That is the real agenda.
Now, turning back to Kingjester’s assortment of anecdotes, it occurs to me that to this mindset we just got done studying on the birth control issue, “free speech” has a particular and peculiar test: Their exercise of it, seems to have a lot to do with denying it to others. The “others” are, of course, dissenters and not allies.
The thought that occurs to me is this: Since we should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence, I am reluctant to conclude that we’re seeing a premeditated effort to muzzle the non-liberals. That is only the ultimate effect, not the intent. I think the thought process in place is as follows, and this is my observation: If you have some (free speech), that has to mean they are missing some. After all, that is how they look at money, is it not? It’s okay for you to have, oh, one or two hundred dollars in your bank account…maybe four digits in the balance instead of three, if you’re about to sit down and pay your bills. But if you are “two-comma” wealthy, that’s bad, because that has to mean someone else is missing something.
Well, my observation is, that is how they look at free speech. They have it — a monopoly on it — or else, they do not have it. It’s true binary thinking, they can process the number 1 or the number 0. They can’t process fractions.
Just like Ms. Fluke, et al, on the birth control issue. “Access” means nothing short of Aladdin-and-the-Genie access: I want it, ++poof++ there it is. If that objective is not fulfilled — 1 or 0, not fractions — then there is nothing but vast emptiness of space, and “access” has been denied.
I’m old enough to remember two presidential elections ago, when they were making a big deal out of “nuanced” thinking. Senator and candidate John F. Kerry, so went the litany, was capable of seeing the world and the issues in it, in “shades of gray”; this was to be contrasted with “cowboy,” black-and-white thinking, personified by that undignified and unsophisticated Texas rube President George W. Bush.
Somewhere, in the intellectual plane, sometime in the last eight years, a philosophical pancake appears to have been flipped. And I find the national discourse has become extraordinarily contentious about issues that were not even on the radar eight years ago — my observations tell me this is due, in no small part, to the fact that progressives are missing this capability of “nuanced thinking” they once touted so highly. They have all the world’s accumulation of something — no one else, anywhere, can produce so much as a morsel of it — or else they’ve been unfairly denied any of something. They can’t & won’t share their toys…even though, ironically, that is exactly what they’re supposed to be making other people do. It is an ultimatum that exists in their minds and not in reality. And, someday soon, someone really ought to let them know. If that’s possible, that is…
Maybe that should be a voting-eligibility test. You have something; this other person over here, who is not you, also has some of it. Maybe he even has more. But you still have what you have, and he doesn’t have what he has because he took it from you, he just has his and you’ve got yours. Are you capable of comprehending this? If your mind is limited in such a way that you have to mish-mash that into something else before you can engage it, well then sorry. Some of the issues on this ballot you can’t have, demand a level of mental acumen that, for whatever reason, you’re not bringin’. Thanks for making the trip.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s true binary thinking.
Indeed. I’d go further — they’re Manichees:
Far from being comfortable with shades of gray, liberals see only black and white — literally in the case of folks like Our Glorious Leader, Pharaoh Threeputthotep, metaphorically everywhere else. Just as one either has all the access or none, all the free speech or none, so anyone preventing a liberal from having all the access is wholly evil.
We saw it wonderfully clearly in the 400+ post “argument” with the Z-Bot — they wouldn’t concede a single point, even rhetorically, even if it actually advanced the argument in the direction they wanted it to go. Because those who challenge their position are not just ignorant or wrong, but EVIL. And if you compromise with evil, that makes you yourself evil.
It’s why they insist on complete conformity in their ranks. It’s why they’re so good at message coordination. It’s why they can flip 180 degrees, even on seemingly crucial issues, at the drop of a talking point. The conclusion — this is Good, that is Bad — is laid down in advance; reasons, if they bother with them at all, are a distant second.
- Severian | 06/13/2012 @ 08:54I have a female friend who is mostly conservative-libertarian, politically speaking. But she’s got a hard-on for this free contraception thing, or as she calls it “My Reproductive Rights ™ “.
I tried ignoring her, and then I responded to her with facts, costs, etcetera. In response, I heard more insane screeching about [insert bullshit here]. Now, I spend my time openly mocking her because, hey, she deserves it.
Other friends of hers say that (a) insurance covers Viagra and (b) what about [insert medical condition requiring hormones here]. My response are (a) I don’t think that Viagra should be covered and (b) hey medical condition; pregnancy is not a fucking disease. Most of all, I respond that I went to college and free condoms are given out like candy. If you cannot get free birth control, you’re borderline retarded.
“But we want the pill!!”
Good, go and buy it. It costs about $10/month WITHOUT insurance. If you cannot afford $10/month and you refuse to use the free condoms, fuck off and shut up.
Sorry, I’m still pissed off. My favorite line from her was this one:
“Your freedom of religion stops when it interferes with my reproductive rights.”
1) No one is messing with her reproductive rights. However, we don’t think we should pay for your BIRTH CONTROL, which is a policy decision, not a right.
2) No policy decision-ever- trumps a constitutional right. Period. If that sentence confuses you, let me know and I’ll speak slower and use smaller words.
This whole issue is insane. My wife and I had some disagreement in years past about whether or not birth control pills should be covered. However, she agrees that forcing someone else to pay for them is bullshit (my word, not hers). In fact, she tells me almost daily that she is seriously worried about the mental health of my (our) friend that I mentioned above.
- Physics Geek | 06/13/2012 @ 09:14[…] been trying to map these burbling swamps for a long while now, and his latest expidition makes for a good read. A sample: I think the thought process in place is as follows, and this is my observation: If you […]
- Falling off the edge of the world « Blog of the Nightfly | 06/13/2012 @ 10:20Here is what you tell the female friend: Viagra is not covered by most major medical insurance and costs $20+ per pill. Please show me an insurance that does cover it.
And then, there’s this: condoms protect against STDs which rob women of their ability to reproduce. Condoms are readily available in supermarkets these days and I’ve heard that some college medical centers provide them for free. Why are you in favor of making it easier to get contraceptives that can cause cancer and other health risks, and provide no protection against STDs? That usually puts the ball back in their court, to try and justify why it’s okay to risk women’s health.
But here’s the one I’d like to know: why is it that we have politicians that insist on programs that their constituents do not want? We are in the process of building a new bridge between Portland OR and Vancouver WA. Our local politicians want light rail. The voters on this side of the river voted it down several years ago. There’s very little support for it locally. Yet meeting after meeting, we get to watch the councilpeople and the mayor insist on putting it through. The latest is to put a tax on the local businesses to fund it. This will be just great as they plan to do a toll on the bridge to fund that, which means no one in their right minds will leave here and pay the toll to work in Portland. It is a major disaster in the making. I’d be willing to bet you that the folks in California don’t want light rail either. Yet there seems to be no way to convince these bureaucrats to stop.
- teripittman | 06/13/2012 @ 12:53“Your freedom of religion stops when it interferes with my reproductive rights.”
What ‘reproductive rights’, first of all? (Good night Irene, am I ever sick and tired of that phrase, along with ‘common sense gun control’….)
What does that even mean? The right to poison, crush, and dismember an innocent infant as it grows in its mother’s womb, because the mother has arbitrarily decided that right now “isn’t a good time?” The ‘choice’ was made some months ago, lady – when you opted to have sex without proper birth control. At this point it’s a done deal.
It’s got nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion.’ You don’t need a clergyman and a Bible and a church service to look at an ultrasound and understand plain-as-day that there’s another, separate, living human being in there. You don’t need a belief in God to understand that (though admittedly it does help one understand why it’s wrong to terminate that life).
Your so-called ‘reproductive rights’ end where another life begins. Pardon my French, but fuck the hell off with that shit. What obnoxious twaddle.
- cylarz | 06/14/2012 @ 00:00. I’d be willing to bet you that the folks in California don’t want light rail either. Yet there seems to be no way to convince these bureaucrats to stop.
Got that right. I voted NO on Prop 1A, which was the 2010 ballot measure that authorized the thing. I couldn’t see a need for a train system connecting LA to points further north when we already have Interstate 5 and daily commuter air service doing those routes…and I certainly wasn’t in favor of my state government going further in the hole to finance it either. I knew it would turn out like every other boondoogle – years behind schedule, costs 3x or more what we were promised, endless court actions by environmentalists tying up the project…and then if it does go through it’ll take years to build.
And then once built, I doubted it would have enough ridership to pay for its own operating costs, so there goes one more ongoing money pit. The BART train system which has been servicing the San Francisco Bay Area since 1972, claims to move more people each day than the busiest airline in the US, and it still requires external funding in order to help meet its operating costs. A train system running up and down the state would be the same or worse.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I’d love to get on a train, ride through the Central Valley at 120 mph and be in LA in half the time it would take me to drive. I just don’t see it happening. We aren’t Europe or Japan – mass transit (anywhere outside of densely populated urban areas) tends to be a bust in the United States.
- cylarz | 06/14/2012 @ 00:102) No policy decision-ever- trumps a constitutional right. Period. If that sentence confuses you, let me know and I’ll speak slower and use smaller words.
There seems to be no end to the confusion on the Left about which rights our people possess and which they do not. Left-wing “logic” is that people have an inalienable right to birth control, marriage to anything they want to marry, ‘privacy,’ food, education, or a dozen other things that someone else must pay for.
But ask them about a right to own a firearm, something which is not only enshrined in the Constitution but validated by two recent SCOTUS decisions. You get crickets chirping.
I couldn’t have been more disgusted when the President started opining about how that musty old parchment only spells out what government cannot do to you, but not what it must do for you.
Personally, I’m not interested in the kind of government that is required to do anything *for* me, other than making sure I’m not molested by its own agents and/or my fellow citizens…and keeping foreign troops out of our territory.
- cylarz | 06/14/2012 @ 00:21Personally, I’m not interested in the kind of government that is required to do anything *for* me, other than making sure I’m not molested by its own agents and/or my fellow citizens…and keeping foreign troops out of our territory.
Right on, cylarz.
The only reason to even have a government at all, is the very same reason why that government must be limited sharply – none of us humans can really be trusted in a group with anyone else.
Within the group there’s a fighting chance, because it’s small, because you’re usually tied closely together, such as in a family or a religious sect. And whatever fight you have in you can be safely channeled against outside threats, deepening the bonds within the group. But even then there will be all sorts of rules and boundaries to keep things humming smoothly. Once those groups starts bumping up against each other, all bets are off.
This is, not coincidentally, why tribal orthodoxies such as socialism claim such merit for themselves no matter what kind of a disaster they are on a large scale… why, it works on our commune! – indeed, why a certain species of hippiedom blathers about “the family of man” (true) which should live as one (also true) by scrapping society’s “hang-ups” and just living, maaaaaan (OH HELLS TO THE NO). Those “hang-ups” are often the only thing that keeps the larger human society living at all, much less “as one.” Imagine *this,* hippie: it doesn’t even work once the commune gets large enough (cf. OccupyMovement). The “hang-ups” turn out to be personal; the fault, dear hippie, lies not in the corporations but in ourselves. So, quiz time: if socialism can’t work under ideal conditions, among an entire set of completely like-minded, inclined-to-collectivism folk, why should it work among those opposed in principle and habit to the very notion?
And if it didn’t work just because you were opposed, then how the flying spaghetti monster do you propose to make it work among the very people who opposed you in the first place? Answer: by force and fiat, so there. And if that’s the case, then your precious collectivism turns out to be one of two things –
1. unnatural and abhorrent to human nature, no matter what you say; or
2. another example of fallen humanity’s propensity to do violence to and conquer/exploit others.
I know that you’ll SAY that THIS time, there’s a good reason and it’s for our own good and Teh Planet or Teh Childrunz or etc. No sale, hippie. First off, you’re very likely wrong about that; second, you can’t make the case without the point of the spear. “But governments do that all the time!” Why, yes… yes they do… and isn’t that the very first item we started with? That we need as little of that sort of thing as possible – only enough to prevent us from preyeing on each other – and not so much that the government itself becomes the predator?
- nightfly | 06/14/2012 @ 08:08