From Around the Blogroll

Following North Carolina House House Speaker Thom Tillis’ victory in the Republican senatorial primary, Sister Toldjah noted incumbent Senator Kay Hagan’s decision to go for broke and “fully embrace” Obaminablecare. Most polls show that the wholly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unpopular, but, as I have said previously, the only polls which actually count are the ones held on election day, and this helps to set up the North Carolina senate race as a referendum on that terrible law.

Meanwhile, Patterico noted that the Carolina Democrats are already claiming that Mr Tillis, the most moderate of the candidates in the primary, is far too conservative for Carolina voters.1 Donald Douglas of American Power also wrote on the subject.

Jeff Goldstein wrote about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision not to list the Nigerian Islamist militant group Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. That decision certainly didn’t make much news at the time, but the group seizing a couple hundred Nigerian girls and selling them as wives kind of puts a spotlight on it. Isn’t it odd that the supposed frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination has fouled up everything she has put her hands on?

William Jacobson of Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion wrote about the (supposedly) defunct JournoLists (once again) carrying water for the Obama Administration. I would have thought that, at some point, even liberals would have wanted President Obama to get something, anything! right, but apparently that point hasn’t been reached.

L D Jackson laughs about President Obama’s statement that Americans need to trust their government more. This is a government with away-too-powerful Infernal Revenue Service being used to attack political opponents — something which was one of the House Judiciary Committee’s Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon — and a National Security Agency, which is supposed to provide intelligence on foreign threats, spying on almost everybody, yet the nincompoop in the White House says we need to trust the government more?

On the Colossus of Rhodey, Hube mocked Florida public school teacher Swornia Thomas, who prohibited a 12-year-old student from reading the Bible during a designated free reading period. The school principal backed up the teacher, and neither of them were aware of federal Department of Education regulations which state that yes, students certainly may read the Bible, or any other religious books, during such times. Of course, had the student been reading a Quran, the teacher probably wouldn’t have bothered him in the slightest.

Patterico blogged on a subject I’ve note on this site many times before, how commercial banks create money. That’s (probably) a subject on which not too many people are really interested, but it is one of the bases of modern economics, and really should be better understood.

 

And the story? Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg called Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) an Affirmative Action senator. He won election to the House of Representatives, in a heavily Republican district, after having won the Republican primary runoff against Paul Thurmond, son of the late senator, by a two-to-one margin. The voters chose him. After Senator Jim DeMint resigned, Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) appointed Mr Scott to serve in the seat held by Mr DeMint; Governor Haley herself is a member of a racial minority, an American of Indian descent — India Indian, not a North American Indian — who also won her seat by the majority vote of the people of South Carolina.

That’s the part that Mr Wilkinson doesn’t understand: Republicans who oppose Affirmative Action have no problem at all voting for candidates who are not of European ancestry, but believe that everyone should compete equally, without special help. And the results of Affirmative Action are pretty clear: the left see any person who is part of a racial minority who has achieved anything of significance as having done so not on merit, but because he had some special help.

From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:

HGTV Nixes Show Over Host’s Beliefs
by Lonely Conservative • May 9, 2014 • 3 Comments

Home and Garden Television (HGTV) canceled plans for a new show called “Flip it Forward” because one of the hosts of the show has publicly expressed his Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. David Benham, who would have co-hosted the show with his twin brother Jason, is also pro-life, something else that is no longer tolerated in this brave new world of ours.

Even worse, the brothers used to flip houses for profit. The new show was going to be about them finding “fixer-uppers” for low income families and turning the houses into “forever homes.” So I guess HGTV is against helping the poor, or at least they have no problem sacrificing the poor to avoid the wrath of the evil leftists who have taken over our country.

More at the link. As it happens, your Editor watches HGTV a lot, and there are several shows in which the hosts are flipping houses for profit, Flip or Flop primary among them, and with one of the hosts frequently discussing his concerns over whether they are going to make money on a featured flip, and with the profit realized noted at the end of the show.

And while I haven’t gone through and counted, I have noticed that on shows like House Hunters, House Hunters International and Property Brothers, where couples (usually) are searching for homes, homosexual couples have been featured in a significantly greater percentage of the shows than the percentage of homosexuals in the population. It’s almost as though HGTV was promoting homosexuality as simply a normal living arrangement.

William Teach wrote about The Wall Street Journal’s take on yet another global warming climate change assessment by the Obama Administration:2

But the fine print that few will ever read acknowledges the real uncertainties of something as complex as the planet’s atmosphere. “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900,” the authors observe. We also learn that “trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively.” And so on.

The National Climate Assessment matters because it serves as the underlying justification for carbon-related regulations. Introducing bias into this primary source (though it does not make new analytic contributions) will distort the rule-making process across the government for years to come.

The report reveals less about climate than it does about the method of the President who described the night he won the Democratic nomination as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” The White House is telling all and sundry that Mr. Obama wants to fill out his last two and a half years in office with action on climate change, but the report shows he doesn’t want an open or honest debate.

There’s more at the Journal original, but I think that Mr Teach nailed it with his conclusion:

There’s nothing wrong with many adaption schemes, nor alternative energy, regardless of your belief it is anthropogenic or not. What we do not need to do is piss away money in a political manner which accomplishes little, while destroying the economy. Not too mention the massive increase in fascistic, controlling Big Government.

Exactly right. Conservation of our natural resources and cleaning up the environment is a good in itself: it’s economically wise and good for our health. But trying to clean things up should not mean impoverishing ourselves: we can work on better, renewable energy sources without prematurely destroying our current electricity generation, without wasting working families’ hard earned dollars, without making everything cost more, for no gain in real wealth. And I’d say that the Obama Administration is horribly conflicted on this: they say that working Americans deserve a raise, but then they want to turn around and take all of that increased pay3 to spend on higher electricity and fuel bills.

Of course, we really don’t need to worry at all, because, as Robert Stacey Stacy McCain told us , the radical feminists have determined that we’ll all be dead in a short sixteen years!

What this guy, Guy, says, or rather what he demonstrates with the support of hundreds of long term scientific evidence from many sources including very conservative and mainstream sources, is that all life on this planet will come to extinction by 2030. The major cause of this extinction will be that the global warming and melting of the ice has triggered a series of feedback loops of toxic gas emissions such as methane and carbon dioxyde which were trapped in the soils and underwaters of the earth by the ice and frost. These feedback loops have already started, are now unstoppable and life on earth is already on its way to extinction. No technology can stop this – especially since male technology is part of the problem and their use and fabrication will only emit more greenhouse gases. Even if men’s system collapsed now, if all men died and we returned back to stone age, it is unstoppable. Unprecedented levels of methane and carbone dioxyde have already been released into the atmosphere because of the warming and the more gas is emitted, the more the planet heats because of the greenhouse effects of the gas, and the more gas is emitted again. Once the air is too intoxicated plants will start dying too and if all or most plants die together, all the carbon dioxyde they sequestered will be released too, which only further intoxicates the air. There will simply be no more oxygen to breathe and the time it will take for the earth to regain cool temperatures and for the gases to be sequestered again, if that ever happens, which might be between 100 or thousands of years according to the extent of the damage, all species and life will have been already gone.

Emphasis mine, as I’m sure you guessed. :) The esteemed Mr McCain has rather a lot of fun with “Witchwind,” who has determine that all heterosexual intercourse is rape, and is telling us that this is National Offend A Feminist Week. Your Editor believes in feminism to the point that everyone ought to have equal opportunity to try and compete, and that men and women ought to be paid the same for the same jobs. Oddly enough, that is the same view that he holds concerning Affirmative Action, about race, and pretty much about everything: everyone has aright to try, and everyone ought to be playing by the same rules.

On Truth Before Dishonor, DNW asks if modern liberals are fit to be free. Your Editor wonders if it’s the right question, given that so much of American liberalism is devoted to policies which restrict freedom; it’s less a question of whether liberals are fit to be free than the fact that they don’t like freedom. They are busy trying to create a society in which they are enslaving themselves to the government, saying that it’s all for our own good, and that those who don’t agree, well, they have to be enslaved, too.

And I’ll wrap it up with Kelley Kruse’ article on The Victory Girls, noting the anniversary of VE Day. Mrs Kruse asked:

The Allies stood up to Hitler and his mighty war machine, the Third Reich. Could we do that now? Could we make the sacrifices that our grandparents and great-grandparents once did, in order to defeat a terrible force intent on reshaping the world in its own image?

In a word, no.

We defeated Germany, and Japan, by killing millions of their soldiers, and by bombing their homelands mercilessly, destroying their productivity and killing a couple of million of their civilians, the elderly, the able, and children alike. We created firestorms which burned tens of thousands of people to death, and defeated them by killing and bombing and burning until they were unable to continue to fight any longer.

Today? A seven-year-old boy gets killed while we are taking out a terrorist leader, and, oh my Lord, we’ve committed a grievous sin! With today’s mentality, we couldn’t have defeated the Germans, because we couldn’t have bombed their factories, because innocent civilians would be harmed.

That’s it for this week!
_______________________________________

  1. As anyone who lived in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia can tell you, the state is referred to simply as Carolina, not North Carolina. :)
  2. Your Editor is automatically skeptical of any site calling itself “globalchange.gov“.
  3. Not that there will be any increased pay in real terms, and there will probably be fewer jobs to boot.

15 Comments

  1. Pingback: HGTV Nixes Show Over Host’s Beliefs | The Lonely Conservative

  2. it’s less a question of whether liberals are fit to be free than the fact that they don’t like freedom.

    Correction: They don’t like freedom for other people!

  3. The esteemed Mr McCain has rather a lot of fun with “Witchwind,” who has determine that all heterosexual intercourse is rape

    I don’t normally read this kind of stuff, but in this case the author has clearly ridden the Crazy Train right off the rails …

  4. Eric wrote:

    it’s less a question of whether liberals are fit to be free than the fact that they don’t like freedom.

    Correction: They don’t like freedom for other people!

    I’m not sure that they really like freedom even for themselves. With freedom comes responsibility, and they sure don’t seem to want that!

  5. Eric wrote:

    I don’t normally read this kind of stuff, but in this case the author has clearly ridden the Crazy Train right off the rails …

    It’s actually kind of amusing, if you can stand to read it. She believes that men ought to all die, without the rather obvious consideration that if all men died, women would follow them to the grave in a few more decades.

  6. Editor
    Saturday, 10 May 2014 at 07:48

    Eric wrote:

    it’s less a question of whether liberals are fit to be free than the fact that they don’t like freedom.

    Correction: They don’t like freedom for other people!

    I’m not sure that they really like freedom even for themselves. With freedom comes responsibility, and they sure don’t seem to want that!

    Not sure I nested the block quotes properly.

    Nonetheless, what I was doing was merely re-posing a question that I have brought up number of times in a relatively abstract form previously; principally on Common Sense Political Thought.

    The central question revolves around “fit” in the sense of well adapted. In this case, as in well adapted biologically and psychologically (if you recognize a clear distinction between them) to life in the social context we term a “classically liberal polity”, or maybe, a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

    The question then is not, ‘Do some people prefer a bureaucratic nanny state for nefarious moral reasons?’, but whether or not certain persons, comparatively unable to thrive when merely given access to nature and the opportunity to freely form voluntary associations, must instead, constantly seek a strategy for “farming the farmers” who can manage it. And, if they will then employ politics in order to build up that sociopolitical scaffolding in which they can more comfortably nest.

    And of course: are these traits heritable?

    The evidence seems to be amassing that this is so. Those who successfully engage nature and are subsequently themselves farmed, resent it. Those who do the farming of the productive, instead view it as social progress, and the evolution of values toward community sensibilities.

    The apex of civilization being represented by a pudgy, festering, depressive apartment dwelling male librarian from New Zealand receiving a guaranteed meal ticket from the state.

    As I have said before, unlike the former southern slaves anxiously craving the fulfillment of a mythological promise of 40 acres and a mule, the modern place-seeking American would instead flee shrieking in terror from the deed and title to any such property, be the 40 figurative or otherwise, if it meant that it cut him loose and set him out on his own. They want cossetting, affirmation, emotional support, and a smorgasbord of choices provided by others; not the freedom to possess property, and shape matter to suit. They want to be esteemed for whatever welling urges it is that they wish to express; not for turning a field into a Bucks County showplace.

    So, I think that while logic, the discipline of history, and expanding social experience have taken us part of the way to this conclusion, genetic and psychological research is driving it further now.

    The trouble with all such research is that loony racists seem to gravitate to these studies like bees to nectar, and to add hysteria to what otherwise would be simple questions of fact posed by cases such as Bradley Manning’s.

    And of course, if on the other hand you do not even believe in “micro-evolution”, then you are going to have some real difficulty accepting the idea that humans in their variety have heritable traits which relate to divergent social behavior and various ways of engaging the world.

    In any event, my question was focused on the issue of the classical liberal polity’s suitability as an environment for the expression of certain kinds of what may be heritable human dispositions.

    And my tentative answer is that in a society that emphasizes the availability of opportunity over solidarity ( as the Social Security theorists observed regarding ours at one time) the Bradley Mannings of the system will find themselves faced with a material world they are not well equipped to deal with, and a social world that is largely unappreciative and uninterested. Unless the Mannings of that system wish to “man up” and to embrace the virtues they seem to have no interest in, their only choice is to either bear the consequences of their dispositions, or to find a way to make a living hanging out in the kitchen with aunt Edna and cousin Lucy, as they do Grandmas’ home perm – figuratively speaking again.

    Maybe such a specimen can even get society to pay him for doing so. Better for him, as he sees it, than discontentedly running a milling machine in the city for a capitalist who “doesn’t care about him as a person”, or handling those very frightening cattle and horses …

  7. It takes brains to run a milling machine, but then leftist’s don’t know anymore about that than they do about fornication.

  8. Me: Correction: They don’t like freedom for other people!

    Dana: I’m not sure that they really like freedom even for themselves. With freedom comes responsibility, and they sure don’t seem to want that!

    They want the “Freedom” that comes from being the Ruling Class. The freedom to make any laws they want and the freedom to make the rest of us, the peasants, the proles, bow to their will.

    This seems to be where DNW and I differ. He sees (if I’m reading him correctly) left wingers as driven primarily by weakness whereas I see them as driven primarily by malice. In DNW’s view, the left winger is too weak and incompetent to live in a world that demands (and rewards) self-reliance, hence the left wing creature wants a permanent Welfare State that will coddle him. In my view (and as shown in Orwell’s 1984) the left winger ultimately wants to set up a Police State with themselves as the police.

  9. Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Every Picture Tells A Story : The Other McCain

  10. The left includes those motivated by weakness as well as those motivated by malice, and don’t neglect the ignorant and the greedy. Fellow travelers marching toward an imaginary worker’s paradise, cheek by jowl with True Belivers led by bloodsuckers suckled in a creed outworn, united all in the pursuit of gain at the expense of others. Thieves and takers, not givers, would-be masters of better men, and an abomination to the very concepts of freedom and independence.

  11. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  12. Eric
    Sunday, 11 May 2014 at 06:07

    Me: Correction: They don’t like freedom for other people!

    Dana: I’m not sure that they really like freedom even for themselves. With freedom comes responsibility, and they sure don’t seem to want that!

    They want the “Freedom” that comes from being the Ruling Class. The freedom to make any laws they want and the freedom to make the rest of us, the peasants, the proles, bow to their will.

    This seems to be where DNW and I differ. He sees (if I’m reading him correctly) left wingers as driven primarily by weakness whereas I see them as driven primarily by malice. In DNW’s view, the left winger is too weak and incompetent to live in a world that demands (and rewards) self-reliance, hence the left wing creature wants a permanent Welfare State that will coddle him. In my view (and as shown in Orwell’s 1984) the left winger ultimately wants to set up a Police State with themselves as the police.”

    “The people we call ‘liberals’ “.

    I should probably try and keep my own provisos [the bracketing of these labels] before me. That is to say, to try and remember that in every instance we are talking about people who want something of one kind or another, and who have definite ideas as to how to structure their relations with others in order to get what they want.

    In that case, “liberal” would just be a term that has evolved through political use to represent a cluster of types who have some programmatic ideals in common. (Whether this is the result of psychological or cognitive styles which can be traced to genetic markers and inheritance is a matter that this particular rumination can leave aside.)

    No longer denoting then, one whose emphasis is on liberty, the term “liberal” has come (under the influence of mechanistic anti-natural rights philosophies) to represent one whose personal concern and social goal is the politically directed ordering and distribution appetite satisfactions within a system in which the highest existential ideal is held to be “human solidarity”.

    Now, as we all know, there is nothing in leftist theory which requires that the concept of “equality” they brandish, actually be distributive. In fact, despite their love of the word “equality”and their association of it with the notion of “justice” which seems to indicate a stance against exploitation, it has been clear since the very beginnings of anti-theistic leftism that leftist theorists have rejected formal political equality as a solution for a system of life that is all encompassing in nature and redistributive in aim. All life chances, and therefore world-matter, must be placed under the appropriation powers of the state. Under their theory in other words: It aint exploitation if the government takes it away from you in order to even things up.

    Now, whether you are a United Nations bureaucrat pondering how you are going to best manage the distribution of appetite satisfactions to a chaotic human herd so that the trouble caused by the resentments and flailing of the stupid and the behaviorally incontinent is minimized, or, whether you are an emotionalist at some politically lower level who sees all human troubles as emanating from the estranging social effects of privilege and self-directive regard, it is obvious that there is a shared element there. It is revealed as a thrust toward a social system in which the “authorities” have unlimited power to redress every “imbalance” caused by unequal natures and talents, to wipe away every tear, to demand that all the sanctified who demand esteem are esteemed, and to ensure that the proper object of worship for man, is as Marx said, mankind. Or, at least their kind of mankind.

    It’s just a matter of who get to be the high priests.

  13. within a system in which the highest existential ideal is held to be “human solidarity”.

    Do left wingers really want “Solidarity”, or just power? When they set up the first “Solidarity” state, the USSR, the left wingers running it quickly began eating their own. Same in Castro’s Cuba, where potential rivals were wiped out. I’m not sure left wingers want solidarity even with their own kind let alone anyone else.

  14. Remember the Left Wing credo (From Orwell’s 1984)

    O’Brien: The future, Winston, is a boot smashing a human face. Forever.

Comments are closed.