Andrew Cuomo and ‘Liberal’ Extremism

A recurrent theme of mine is that contemporary liberals are extremists.  Note the qualifier 'contemporary.'  I am not talking about 1960 JFK liberals, let alone the classical liberals of the 19th century. Contemporary liberals are, in my recent coinage, LINOs, liberals in name only.  What in fact they are are hard leftists.

So I suppose I should thank Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York and son of Mario Cuomo for saying what he and his ilk think when their normal modus operandi is to hide what they really think and engage in stealth tactics, Obama being a prime practitioner thereof.  Cuomo has spilled the beans and shown his true colors if you will permit me a mixed metaphor.  Here is what he said:

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

Does this deserve a civil response?  No, but it does call for a response, of the sort illustrated here.

The Philosophy Situation at University of Colorado, Boulder

I have no opinion yet on the goings-on at the UC Boulder philosophy department.  I just hope it is not another instance of the US becoming the SU.  If you are interested, click away.

Here, here, here, and here.  And two of  the articles infra.

Update (2/7)

A conservative take:  Something Fishy in Colorado

More Proof of Liberal Scumbaggery

I say you are moral scum if you willfully slander your opponents having made  no attempt to understand their point of view.

This is from a Guardian piece on George Lakoff:

To liberals, a lot of conservative thinking seems like a failure of logic: why would a conservative be against equal rights for women and yet despise the poor, when to liberate women into the world of work would create more wealth, meaning less poverty? And yet we instinctively understand those as features of the conservative worldview, and rightly so.

This is beneath response.

Here are some critical comments of mine from September 2004 on Lakoff's ideas.

Nice but Dumb

I can't believe that this old 16 September 2004 post from my first weblog languished there so long before being brought over, today, to my newer digs.

……………

My cat Caissa – named after the goddess of Chess – was feeling under the weather recently, so I took her to the vet for some blood work. The twenty-something receptionist at Caring Critters was nice enough but she stumbled over my name. But I was in a good mood, so I didn’t mind it too much. She didn’t even try to pronounce it which I suppose is better than mangling it. I don’t cotton to being called Valenzuela, Valencia, Vermicelli, Varicella, Valparaiso or Vladivostok. Don’t make me into an Hispanic. In these parts, if your are not Hispanic you are an ‘Anglo.’ That doesn’t sit well with me either.

Perhaps I should be happy that I do not rejoice under the name of Znosko-Borovsky or Bonch-Osmolovsky. Nor do I stagger under such burdens as Witkiewicz, Brzozowski, or Rynasiewicz. The latter is the name of a philosopher I knew when he taught at Case Western Reserve University.  Alvin Plantinga once mentioned to me, sometime in the late '80s, that he had been interviewed at Notre Dame, except that ‘rhinoceros’ was all Plantinga could remember of his name.

Actually, none of these names is all that difficult if you sound them out. But apparently no one is taught phonics anymore. Damn those liberals! They’ve never met a standard they didn’t want to erode. I am grateful to my long-dead mother for sending me to Catholic schools where I actually learned something. I learned things that no one seems to know any more, for example, grammar, Latin, geography, mathematics. The next time you are in a bar, ask the twenty-something ‘tender whether that Sam Adams you just ordered is a 12 oz or a pint. Now observe the blank expression on her face: she has no idea what a pint is, or that a pint is 16 oz, or that there are four quarts in a gallon, or 5,280 feet in a mile, or 39.37 inches in a meter, or that light travels at 186, 282 miles/sec, or that a light-year is a measure of distance, not of time.

Even Joan Baez got this last one wrong in her otherwise excellent song, Diamonds and Rust, a tribute to her quondam lover, Bob Dylan. The irony is that Joanie’s pappy was a somewhat distinguished professor of physics! In a high school physics class we watched a movie in which he gives a physics lecture.

I was up in 'Flag' (Flagstaff) a few years back to climb Mt. Humphreys, the highest point in Arizona at 12,643 ft. elevation, (an easy class 1 walk-up except for the thin air) and to take a gander at the moon through the Lowell Observatory telescope. While standing in line for my peek, I overheard a woman say something to her husband that betrayed her misconception that the moon glows by its own light. She was astonished to learn from her husband that moonlight is reflected sunlight. I was astonished at her astonishment. One wonders how she would account for the phases of the moon. What ‘epicycles’ she would have to add to her ‘theory’!

*Every Proposition is Affirmative*

Buridan's assNicholas Rescher cites this example from Buridan.  The proposition is false, but not self-refuting.  If every proposition is affirmative, then of course *Every proposition is affirmative* is affirmative.  The self-reference seems innocuous, a case of self-instantiation. But *Every proposition is affirmative* has as a logical consequence *No proposition is negative.*  This follows by Obversion, assuming that a proposition is negative if and only if it is not affirmative.

Paradoxically, however, the negative proposition, unlike its obverse, is self-refuting.  For if no proposition is negative then *No proposition is negative* is not negative.  So if it is, it isn't.  Plainly it is. Ergo, it isn't.

Rescher leaves the matter here, and I'm not sure I have anything useful to add. 

It is strange, though, that here we have two logically equivalent propositions one of which is self-refuting and the other of which is not.  The second is necessarily false.  If true, then false; if false, then false; ergo, necessarily false.  But then the first must also be necessarily false.  After all, they are logically equivalent: each entails the other across all logically possible worlds.

What is curious, though, is that the ground of the logical necessity seems different in the two cases.  In the second case, the necessity is grounded in logical self-contradiction.  In the first case, there does not appear to be any self-contradiction.

It is impossible that every proposition be affirmative.  And it is impossible that no proposition be negative.  But whereas the impossibility of the second is the impossibility of self-referential inconsistency, the impossibility of the first is not.  (That is  the 'of' of apposition.)

Can I make an aporetic polyad out of this?  Why not?

1. Logically equivalent logically impossible propositions have the same ground of their logical impossibility.

2. The ground of the logical impossibility of *Every proposition is affirmative* is not in self-reference.

3. The ground of the logical impossibility of *No proposition is negative* is in self-reference.

The limbs of this antilogism are individually plausible but collectively inconsistent.

REFERENCES

Nicholas Rescher, Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Open Court, 2001, pp. 21-22.

G. E. Hughes, John Buridan on Self-Reference, Cambidge UP, 1982, p. 34. Cited by Rescher.

The Afterlife of Habit upon the Death of Desire

Desire leads to the gratification of desire, which in turn leads to the repetition of the gratification.  Repeated gratification in turn leads to the formation of an intensely pleasurable habit, one that persists even after the desire wanes and  disappears, the very desire without whose gratification the  habit wouldn't exist in the first place.  Memories of pleasure conspire in the maintenance of habit.  The ancient rake, exhausted and infirm, is not up for another round of debauchery, but the memories haunt him, of pleasures past.  The memories keep alive the habit after the desire has fled the decrepit body that refuses to serve as an engine of pleasure.

And that puts me in mind of Schopenhauer's advice.  "Abandon your vices before they abandon you."

On Buying a Homeless Man a Sandwich

Daniel Greenfield:

You can buy a homeless man a sandwich, but you can't buy them all sandwiches because once you do that, you are no longer engaging in a personal interaction, but building an organization and the organization perpetuates itself. You don't need a homeless man to exist so that you can buy him a sandwich, but once an agency exists that is tasked with buying homeless men sandwiches, it needs the homeless men to exist as 'clients' so that it can buy them sandwiches and buy itself steak dinners.

‘Lede’ or ‘Lead’?

Why do some journalists use 'lede' instead of 'lead'?  I don't know.  A lede is "the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story."  (Merriam-Webster)  The same source claims that the first known use was in 1976.  Why the innovation? Just to be cute or 'different'?

Here we read that 'lede' is an invention of linotype romanticists and does not come from the linotype era.

Why do I blog about such a bagatelle?  To fix in my memory this word I learned just this morning.

The uses of blogging are many.

The State Under Leftism

Although the state under leftism is totalitarian and demands conformity and submission in matters of moment, it tolerates and indeed encourages the cultivation of a politically inconsequential individualism of private self-absorption.  A people given bread (food stamps and other forms of infantilizing dependency), circuses (mass sporting events), dope (legalization of marijuana), pornography, politically correct propaganda, and such weapons of mass distraction as Twitter and Facebook is kept distracted, enervated, and submissive.

Nowadays it is not religion that is the opiate of the masses, but the dope of  Big Government.

Saturday Night at the Oldies: Pete Seeger (1919-2014)

According to Ron Radosh, ". . . 'The Hammer Song,' known by most as “If I Had a Hammer,” was written by Lee Hays (not Seeger) as a song to be used in defense of the indicted Communists, and not as a clarion call for brotherhood."  May of us were fooled way back when, we who heard it first in the Peter, Paul, and Mary version. The Seeger version.

Buffy Sainte Marie and Pete Seeger, Cindy

Pete Seeger and Donovan, Colours

Pete Seeger, Sonny Terry, Brownie McGee, Rock Island Line

Pete Seeger and Doc Watson, You've Got to Walk that Lonesome Valley

Pete Seeger and Johnny Cash, Worried Man Blues

Back to Radosh for context, and to stem the deluge of uncritical praise (bolding added):

Pete Seeger’s death at the age of 94 has brought forth scores of celebratory tributes. America had long ago showered him with honors, which all but made up for the scorn with which he was once held in the age of the blacklist. Seeger received the National Medal of the Arts from President Bill Clinton and the Kennedy Center Honors in 1994, as well as multiple Grammys. He was named one of America’s “living legends” by the Library of Congress, was asked to sing at the 2009 inauguration of President Obama, and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He had become, as a Washington Post story once put it, “America’s Best Loved Commie.”

Without Seeger’s influence and sponsorship of folk music, from traditional Appalachian ballads to slave songs of the Old South, many would never have appreciated folk music, nor would it have become a genre whose influence has spread far and wide. He experimented with “world music” long before anyone had used that term; when abroad, he collected songs and brought them back to the United States. “Wimoweh (The Lion Sleeps Tonight),” written by Solomon Linda and used in The Lion King, is a major example of a South African song Seeger brought here generations before Paul Simon.

What other artist would receive a statement from the president of the United States honoring him, not to speak of the scores of senators and members of Congress who found inspiration in his voice and his singing? 

Yet, an honest appreciation of Pete Seeger cannot be left at what most accolades have done. Indeed, since his political vision, his service over the decades to the brutality of Soviet-era Stalinism and to all of the post-Cold War leftist tyrannies, was inseparable from the music he made, it simply cannot be overlooked. For, more often than not, Seeger’s voice was heard in defense of causes in which only fools could still believe. As Paul Berman put it, “Let us sing ‘If I Had a Hammer,’ then, and, at every third verse, let our hammers bop Pete Seeger on the head for having been a fool and an idiot.”

And calling him a fool and an idiot is, indeed, not too harsh a judgment to make about Pete Seeger. I say that sadly, as a person for whom Pete was a childhood hero. I studied banjo with him, got to know him, and visited him at the legendary home he built from scrap in Beacon, New York. 

For years, all that Pete Seeger said about Joseph Stalin, whose regime he served without a blink for decades, was that the Soviet leader was a “hard driver.”

[. . .]

During the Nazi-Soviet Pact (1939-41), Seeger sang antiwar songs that, in effect, called for the support of Hitler. When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, he withdrew the songs he had just recorded and suddenly supported the “antifascist alliance” between the United States and the Soviets. During the Cold War, he supported unilateral American disarmament and backed one Soviet propaganda campaign after the other. “Put My Name Down, Brother, Where Do I Sign?” he sang, calling for signatures on the Stockholm Peace Petition developed by KGB fronts in Europe. 

During the Vietnam war, Seeger not only helped lead the antiwar movement, he also sang in praise of the brutal Ho Chi Minh. Lyndon B. Johnson was called “a big fool” in one of his most famous songs, while he sang of Ho Chi Minh: He educated all the people, / He demonstrated to the world, / If a man will stand for his own land, / He’s got the strength of ten

In 1999, Seeger traveled to Cuba to receive an award from the Castro regime. The fading Cuban tyrants honored him with their highest cultural award, given for “humanistic and artistic work in defense of the environment and against racism,” which was in and of itself a travesty. Accepting an award from Fidel Castro should make it clear that Seeger’s would-be humanism and protest was aimed at one side only: his own country, which he clearly thought was led by the world’s sole oppressors. 

One cannot hope to be thought of as a defender of human rights and also accept an award from the Cuban police state. That, too, must be taken into consideration when evaluating what Pete Seeger really learned from his own Stalinist past.

In his last years, Seeger, who, in the period when the Soviet Union was briefly pro-Israel, sang songs in both Hebrew and Yiddish (including Israeli songs), gave his support to boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) against Israel, even to the extent that he handed over royalties from “Turn, Turn, Turn” to the movement.

A great folk singer who contributed much to the American story, he was fatally flawed by the leftism he imbibed with his mother’s milk. How telling that a man who sought social justice, peace, and a livable world could, at the same time, believe that serving leftist tyrants was somehow compatible with his dream of universality and solidarity.

A Possible Way to ‘Get Through’ to Liberals on Abortion

Suppose I want to convince you of something.  I must use premises that you accept.  For if I argue from premises that you do not accept, you will reject my argument no matter how rigorous and cogent my reasoning.

So how can we get through to those liberals who are willing to listen?  Not by invoking any Bible-based or theological premises.  And not by deploying the sorts of non-theological but intellectually demanding arguments found in my Abortion category.  The demands are simply too great for most people in this dumbed-down age.

Liberals support inclusivity and non-discrimination.   Although contemporary liberals abuse these notions, as I have documented time and again, the notions possess a sound core and can be deployed sensibly.  To take one example, there is simply no basis to discriminate against women and blacks when it comes to voting.  The reforms in this area were liberal reforms, and liberals can be proud of them.   A sound conservatism, by the way, takes on board what was good in old-time liberalism.

Another admirable feature of liberals is that they speak for the poor, the weak, the voiceless.  That this is often twisted into the knee-jerk defense of every  underdog just in virtue of his being an underdog, as if weakness confers moral superiority, is no argument agauinst the admirableness of the feature when  reasonably deployed.

So say this to the decent liberals:  If you prize inclusivity, then include unborn human beings.  If you oppose discrimination, why discriminate against them?  If you speak for the poor, the weak, and the voiceless, why do you not speak for them?