“

Just as a question

—-

While I always support the free expression of ideas, constant name-calling, personal attacks or attempts to expose individuals who prefer to post or comment anonymously will receive the same treatment they’d get were someone to submit such as a Letter to the Editor in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or The New York Times.

—-

does the above comments policy have any validity at all? I thought conservatives tried to keep their words.

”

Dear Ms Nova,

I’m not sure, since I have no special insight into the mind of the Editor, but it is possible Anna, that you are somewhat confused by your reading of the Editor’s comments policy as you have quoted it.

For example, you might take a moment to note that although the Editor states that consistent violators of his policy will receive the same treatment (implying rejection and possibly ejection) as that which might be expected from the editors of, say, The Wall Street Journal, it does not necessarily follow that the universal content or tone he demands would necessarily amtch the same marketplace journal template.

In fact, what – on my reading – the Editor seems concerned to do, is to prohibit the use of his venue for the purpose of making personal attacks on those, whom he seems imply, participate as other commentators; and, to ensure that some of those commenting here do not attempt to use his forum for the purpose of publicly exposing the identities of other commentators who wish to remain anonymous.

Now, whether he also intends to extend that rule of local courtesy to controversial public figures, or political and social movements, I cannot say.

But I doubt for instance that if someone were to mention Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan by name, and to speak of her as a person incredibly lacking in all judicial bench experience prior, that he would evaluate that characterization as name calling. Maybe if she were regularly [and quite possibly falsely] referred to as “that closeted lesbian at war with traditional American values and mores”, he would have a different take.

Of course, only the Editor could really say whether my reading is a correct reading of his policy or not. Perhaps if you have specific instances you wish to cite, he can match your case to his rule, and clear up any uncertainties you are feeling.

Hope this helps in the meantime.

My response:
Damn slow missiles.

—-
While I always support the free expression of ideas, constant name-calling, personal attacks or attempts to expose individuals who prefer to post or comment anonymously will receive the same treatment they’d get were someone to submit such as a Letter to the Editor in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or The New York Times.
—-

does the above comments policy have any validity at all? I thought conservatives tried to keep their words.

Liberals as we now know them (and they stole that word and twisted its meaning, much as they have stolen many words to twist their meanings …”

Yes, as we all know, the doctrines of modern liberalism are opposed in most respects to the tenets of classical liberalism. A ‘liberal education’ once meant the education in knowledge and virtue proper to a free man fitted for self-governance and participation in political activities.

The modern liberal anthropology however, calculates man as a soulless flesh machine, which has but one right, socially granted. That is the “right” to be seamlessly incorporated into the larger social machine, and to be mutated into a being whose highest aspiration is to flee from its individual self and the burden of personhood: in order, the hoi polloi of the progressive class no doubt hope, to float mindless and naked, perpetually and pleasantly infantilized, upon an ocean of warm enveloping gelatin, all the while watching Oprah via direct injection and voicing anthems of self-affirmation, welcome to others, and the nonjudgmental inclusion of all, in chorus.

You know what’s really comically ironic about all of this? … the phenomenon of liberal indignation.

For example, I’ve been derisively applying the term “hive life” to ardent leftists and social progressives for some time now and getting incredulously wounded reactions. But it’s not an original concept with me. Nor even new. Helmut Thielicke among others, had in critiquing Naziism, long used such evaluative terms. Hell, Karl Marx’s blather about man’s species nature as defining his existence as a “species being” for the purpose of any moral and existential analysis, just pleads for such a mocking characterization, no matter what Marx’s defenders might say as regards its most narrow possible interpretation.

And of course we all know of the automaton-like science fiction characters posited by a certain space fantasy series; and how they represent a hilarious parody of the realization of a liberal’s heaven on earth scenario.

Here’s what’s really precious about the objections of some leftists to the employment of these “collective life” characterizations: significant numbers of present day “social progressives”, specifically the so-called transhumanists, have themselves embraced the terminology and the concept of the “hive mind” as something empowering and positive. They apparently conceive of it as a wonderful evolutionary step on the way to their ascendance into a kind of collective, quasi-mechanical, godhood.

Even the more modest of the devotees of this collective-mind concept, apparently imagine that at the very least they will be able to tap into it at will – like some giant free-access database – and that they may rest assured that no cookies or viruses will ever be deposited in return.

Yeah. I’d like to see just how long their firewalls would last given that premise … LOL

Could you tell us from where you got the meaning of the word “hyper-inflation” and from where you got the prediction that America would be experiencing it next year?

WW wrote:

On moral, ethical, constitutional and practical grounds, yes all four, there are arguable reasons that the SCOTUS ruling on Grutter should not be overturned, unless one is a racist, in denial of the inferior position which African-Americans have been forced to endure for over three centuries in our country, and still do by default.

As I read that, you have just said that anyone who comes to the conclusion that Affirmative Action is wrong is a racist. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that statement, or elaborate.

We’re still wondering if opposition to Affirmative Action is, by definition, racist.

Also what federal law may Congress properly pass in order to abridge the freedom of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

Why, I suppose that President Obama and the Democrat-controlled eleventy-first Congress could have passed laws banning those awful, horrid, mean-spirited TEA Party demonstrations in 2010! Think how much it would have been a “compelling national interest” for the Democrats to have banned the TEA Party.

It could well be that we have hit upon an example that distinguishes Conservatives from Liberals. Rick Santorum is an excellent example of an absolutist currently in the public eye. For example, being a devout Roman Catholic, he several days ago called for the states to make contraception illegal, can you imagine that?

Liberals believe, or really don’t believe the words of the Constitution mean anything they think it is. To Liberals, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with words that can be shuffled around to mean what they think it means at their convenience. If our Constitution doesn’t have the words they need, they’ll look at another country until they find one. It perfectly explains Clinton’s answer of depends on what the meaning of is, is. Whereas, Conservatives take the words as written, and apply only those words.

“I continue to claim, contrary to our editor here, that the First Amendment is simply not an absolute.”

Which parts? All of it?

Let’s place up at least some of the First Amendment clause by clause, and let Perry say which clauses do not posit an unconditional protection against Congressional infringement:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; …”

Under what circumstances then, and congruent with the Constitution, would Perry assert that the (Federal) Congress would have the power to make a law respecting the Federal establishment of a religion?

If the first amendment is not absolute, Congress should have the ability to lawfully establish a state religion. Under what circumstances does Perry envision such a Congressional act as being a valid federal law under the Constitution?

“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

That is, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise.

So, under what circumstances would Congress have the power to federally prohibit the free exercise of religion in the United States?

Please note that the language is general and categorical as to the permissibility of a federal statute prohibiting exercise. Congress does have the power, for example, to prohibit the immigration of Moloch worshipers into the country.

” or abridging the freedom of speech”

That is, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

In Perry’s non-absolutist interpretation, how does Congress constitutionally ground the power to federally enact a law abridging the freedom to speak?

Also what federal law may Congress properly pass in order to abridge the freedom of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?