It is simply unimaginable to the left that there are any rational minds opposing them. The majority of news channels, newspapers, entertainment channels, and pretty much anything out of Hollywood comes from the single viewpoint of the left. It is very probable that a person can go throughout their early years and reach their twenties without ever hearing a conservative point of view.
Oh, they might hear the isolated pundit or candidate argue for a responsible stance, but it is unlikely that they would ever really be engaged by a conservative explaining their views. The propensity to scream and name call their ideological opponents makes it even less likely that a non-pundit conservative would stick their neck out and confront a leftist idea that really needs to be challenged.
So, when a leftist encounters a conservative on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other fine conservative talkers and writers, they are shocked to hear a viewpoint that disagrees with what they have been spoon fed for years. They may disagree or simply not understand the new viewpoint to which they are being exposed, but they don't think it's reasonable to disagree with everything they have always heard. So ideas such as the Orwellian Fairness Doctorine or Net Neutrality appeal to them.
The rank and file leftist simply doesn't realize that by shutting down conservative voices they are crushing the diversity that they really need, diversity of thought.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Naturally Wrong
"Then the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone, all centuries but this and every country but his own." The Mikado.
Although possibly a function of malignant egalitarianism, the penchant for the left for firing off snarky remarks aimed at our country bears comment.
I have heard recently in various social circumstances a remark that Mexican children are more sweet and respectful than American children. This gem came from the a public school teacher and mother of American children.
This woman was perfectly comfortable slandering her own children along with her students just to satisfy her snarky self indulgent desire to appear more "enlightened." The comical element of this is that the Mexican children in question were so impoverished that they needed a well off American to come and teach them.
I have also heard in a social gathering about how American's have "a lot to learn about our medical care system from Canada." This idiot was funny in that there was no evidence provided nor was any needed. It was merely accepted as a fact that we Americans would of course be provincial and ill-informed.
When asked to explain, with some specific challenges both quickly retreated from their obviously foolish remarks. Usually something as simple as "Canada is kinda close, you might want to emigrate there instead of denigrating the system here." or "I am sorry you aren't satisfied with your own children's sweetness and courtesy."
These two examples have an unquestioned idea that the foreign is sophisticated and the domestic is somehow naturally inferior. Both Naturally wrong.
Although possibly a function of malignant egalitarianism, the penchant for the left for firing off snarky remarks aimed at our country bears comment.
I have heard recently in various social circumstances a remark that Mexican children are more sweet and respectful than American children. This gem came from the a public school teacher and mother of American children.
This woman was perfectly comfortable slandering her own children along with her students just to satisfy her snarky self indulgent desire to appear more "enlightened." The comical element of this is that the Mexican children in question were so impoverished that they needed a well off American to come and teach them.
I have also heard in a social gathering about how American's have "a lot to learn about our medical care system from Canada." This idiot was funny in that there was no evidence provided nor was any needed. It was merely accepted as a fact that we Americans would of course be provincial and ill-informed.
When asked to explain, with some specific challenges both quickly retreated from their obviously foolish remarks. Usually something as simple as "Canada is kinda close, you might want to emigrate there instead of denigrating the system here." or "I am sorry you aren't satisfied with your own children's sweetness and courtesy."
These two examples have an unquestioned idea that the foreign is sophisticated and the domestic is somehow naturally inferior. Both Naturally wrong.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Magnificent contempt
The behavior of Barack Obama in the context of his treatment of the police officer who arrested his professor friend is contemptible, but beyond that. It is contemptible on an absolute scale. invoking the power of the presidential bully pulpit down on an individual police officer and calling the man stupid is magnificently contemptible.
No one private person should be singled out for derision by a man in the position of the president, a man who holds sway over a literal and figurative army of people whether they are administrative beurocrats such as IRS agents, military and police personal or the slavish allies in the mainstream media.
The focus of attention this police officer will receive in the coming days will make his life a living hell.
It's really a pity that the main stream media didn't do their duty during the run up to the presidential election. We could have used some of that powerful scrutiny in avoiding this calamitous president and his contempt for others.
No one private person should be singled out for derision by a man in the position of the president, a man who holds sway over a literal and figurative army of people whether they are administrative beurocrats such as IRS agents, military and police personal or the slavish allies in the mainstream media.
The focus of attention this police officer will receive in the coming days will make his life a living hell.
It's really a pity that the main stream media didn't do their duty during the run up to the presidential election. We could have used some of that powerful scrutiny in avoiding this calamitous president and his contempt for others.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Lost Language
"Bill O'Reilly is lying when he says 'most Americans oppose Sotomayor'"
Assuming contrary to this opinion piece but in line with this one that the statement of opposition to Sotomayor is false.
That would still only be half of the equation, a lie is an untrue statement intentionally communicated. How would the speaker even know what O'Reilly meant by passing on debatable information.
My principle objection to this redefinition of language is the automatic assumption that political opponents are not merely wrong but are necessarily intentionally wrong.
The "Bush lied, people died" remark is particularly odious, no advocate of this moronic little rhyme ever explained how an understandable misstatement of fact made by the President, all of his advisors, Congress, and many intelligence officers around the world was somehow an intentional misrepresentation when it was originally uttered.
Other than being arguably wrong how do they even know what his intent was.
Once again I go back to the observation I make over and over. Republicans and conservatives believe that rank and file democrats are wrong, misinformed or uninformed, Democrats and liberals believe that rank and file republicans are evil and selfish.
With this toxic atmosphere on the left we will not get a reasoned debate. I don't chant along with calls for unity, I like there to be a debate. But this has become toxic in the extreme.
Assuming contrary to this opinion piece but in line with this one that the statement of opposition to Sotomayor is false.
That would still only be half of the equation, a lie is an untrue statement intentionally communicated. How would the speaker even know what O'Reilly meant by passing on debatable information.
My principle objection to this redefinition of language is the automatic assumption that political opponents are not merely wrong but are necessarily intentionally wrong.
The "Bush lied, people died" remark is particularly odious, no advocate of this moronic little rhyme ever explained how an understandable misstatement of fact made by the President, all of his advisors, Congress, and many intelligence officers around the world was somehow an intentional misrepresentation when it was originally uttered.
Other than being arguably wrong how do they even know what his intent was.
Once again I go back to the observation I make over and over. Republicans and conservatives believe that rank and file democrats are wrong, misinformed or uninformed, Democrats and liberals believe that rank and file republicans are evil and selfish.
With this toxic atmosphere on the left we will not get a reasoned debate. I don't chant along with calls for unity, I like there to be a debate. But this has become toxic in the extreme.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Adversity sometimes reveals character
The appointment of Sotomayor could be viewed as a lasting setback to the country and to the legal profession as a whole. The good news could be that as setbacks go, Sotomayor isn't as much as a setback as a character defining instrument for leftist supporters.
Her obvious leftward slant and her rather poor attempts to conceal them have angered even liberal law proffessors that are inclined to support a true unapologetic leftist. Sotomayor is playing to win and get the appointment. As such, she says little, answers in as few words as possible and lets her democrat defenders in congress do most of the talking.
What she is effectively doing, however, is displaying the profound lack of experience, executive ability and character that the Obama administration and Obama himself posess. Even Lindsay Graham succeeded in painting Obama as small for his failure to support an idealogical opponent who was clearly as qualified as some think Sotomayor is for a lesser post than Supreme court justice.
Obama hasn't come out in defense of Sotomayor, I speculate that this is due to a legitimate concern he may have over being linked to some of her more liberal statments.
Time will tell, and the more we know Sotomayor the more we will learn about Obama.
Her obvious leftward slant and her rather poor attempts to conceal them have angered even liberal law proffessors that are inclined to support a true unapologetic leftist. Sotomayor is playing to win and get the appointment. As such, she says little, answers in as few words as possible and lets her democrat defenders in congress do most of the talking.
What she is effectively doing, however, is displaying the profound lack of experience, executive ability and character that the Obama administration and Obama himself posess. Even Lindsay Graham succeeded in painting Obama as small for his failure to support an idealogical opponent who was clearly as qualified as some think Sotomayor is for a lesser post than Supreme court justice.
Obama hasn't come out in defense of Sotomayor, I speculate that this is due to a legitimate concern he may have over being linked to some of her more liberal statments.
Time will tell, and the more we know Sotomayor the more we will learn about Obama.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Liberal Motivations
Liberalism is a subject that has fascinated me since college. I was trying to find out what causes someone to believe liberal ideas with such fervor.
I was struck when a journalism major told me that so-and-so was an atheist but that was alright since was a socialist and so he had a heart. Further, this same journalism student told me what I have come to hear repeated constantly ever since in a myriad of circumstances. She chose journalism to "make the world a better place"
When I heard Evan Sayet's first speech his main point was the desire to be indiscriminate. Very powerful idea, and it seems to resonate throughout the entire ideology. His second speech is very powerful and helpful to this analysis the main thrust there is why liberals choose evil, failed and wrong.
His second speech lead me to conclude that the leftist analysis regarding indiscriminateness must pervade their entire ideology. Some call this Moral Equivalence, but it goes beyond mere moral distinctions, the equivalence attaches to people, things and countries. The logical extension of this indiscriminateness is egalitarianism. When carried out to its most ridiculous level it becomes malignant egalitarianism. The absolute belief that there are no absolutes and the firm resolve that everything, person or country is as valuable as every other thing person or country. The malignant egalitarian will equate the right of Iran to possess nuclear weapons with the US's possession of nuclear weapons. A great example is that American exceptionalism is the same as Iranian exceptionalism. They will equate abu graib under Sadam Hussein with all the horrible maiming and killing with the abu graib abuses of a few miscreant soldiers. They will offer themselves as "human sheilds" dictators and then be surprised when the dictator wants to place them in front of military assets. To Malignant Egalitarians there is no, there can be no objective truth, only subjective truth.
To what degree someone subscribes to malignant egalitarianism will greatly determine how liberal or left someone's beliefs will be.
I was struck when a journalism major told me that so-and-so was an atheist but that was alright since was a socialist and so he had a heart. Further, this same journalism student told me what I have come to hear repeated constantly ever since in a myriad of circumstances. She chose journalism to "make the world a better place"
When I heard Evan Sayet's first speech his main point was the desire to be indiscriminate. Very powerful idea, and it seems to resonate throughout the entire ideology. His second speech is very powerful and helpful to this analysis the main thrust there is why liberals choose evil, failed and wrong.
His second speech lead me to conclude that the leftist analysis regarding indiscriminateness must pervade their entire ideology. Some call this Moral Equivalence, but it goes beyond mere moral distinctions, the equivalence attaches to people, things and countries. The logical extension of this indiscriminateness is egalitarianism. When carried out to its most ridiculous level it becomes malignant egalitarianism. The absolute belief that there are no absolutes and the firm resolve that everything, person or country is as valuable as every other thing person or country. The malignant egalitarian will equate the right of Iran to possess nuclear weapons with the US's possession of nuclear weapons. A great example is that American exceptionalism is the same as Iranian exceptionalism. They will equate abu graib under Sadam Hussein with all the horrible maiming and killing with the abu graib abuses of a few miscreant soldiers. They will offer themselves as "human sheilds" dictators and then be surprised when the dictator wants to place them in front of military assets. To Malignant Egalitarians there is no, there can be no objective truth, only subjective truth.
To what degree someone subscribes to malignant egalitarianism will greatly determine how liberal or left someone's beliefs will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
