Category: Leftism and Political Correctness

Silly Expression: ‘The Government is Us’

Liberal talk show host Thom Hartmann made this idiotic remark on a C-Span panel once. I wonder if Hartman has ever had an encounter with an arrogant cop who has overstepped the bounds of his legitimate authority. Has he ever been audited by the IRS? I recommend the latter experience for its educational value. One quickly learns who the cat is and who the mouse. Liberals often employ this 'Government is us' line.  So it's worth a bit of commentary.

There are two extremes to avoid, the libertarian and the liberal. Libertarians often say that the government can do nothing right, and that the solution is to privatize everything including the National Parks. Both halves of that assertion are patent nonsense. It is equal but opposite nonsense to think that Big Government will solve all our problems. Ronnie Reagan had it right: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have." Or something like that.

The government is not us. It is an entity over against most of us run by a relatively small number of us. Among the latter are some decent people but also plenty of power-hungry scoundrels, for whom a government position is a hustle like any hustle. Government, like any entity, likes power and likes to expand its power, and can be counted on to come up with plenty of rationalizations for the maintenance and  extension of its power. It must be kept in check by us, just as big corporations need to be kept in check by government regulators.

If you value liberty you must cultivate a healthy skepticism about government.  To do so is not anti-government.  Certain scumbags of the Left love to slander us by saying that we are anti-government.  It is a lie and they know it.  They are not so stupid as not to know that to be for limited government is to be for government.

From a logical point of view, the ‘Government is us’ nonsense appears to be a pars pro toto fallacy: one identifies a proper part (the governing) with the whole of which it is a proper part (the governed).

Critical Thinking and the Status Quo

Critical thinking is not necessarily opposed to the status quo. To criticize is not to oppose, but to sift, to assess, to assay, to evaluate, to separate the true from the false.  A critical thinker may well end up supporting the existing state of things in this or that respect. It is a fallacy of the Left to think that any supporter of any aspect of the status quo is an ‘apologist’ for it in some pejorative sense of this term.

This mistake presumably has its roots in the nihilism of the Left. The leftist is incapable of appreciating what actually exists because he measures it against a standard that does not exist, and that in many cases cannot exist. The leftist is a Nowhere Man who judges the topos quo from the vantage point of utopia.

There is no place like utopia, of course, but only because utopia is no place at all.

Heart Attack Hill and Heart Attack Grill

Heart attack burgerI'd rather toil up Heart Attack Hill than put away one of these bad boys.  It would take about 80 miles of hiking to burn off the calories from just one of these burgers if you have the fries and milkshake as well.  Up for an 80-miler?

Nanny-state liberals would use the power of the state to shut down restaurants like this.  That is the trouble with contemporary liberals: they do not understand or value the liberty of the individual , a liberty which includes the liberty to behave in ways that many of us consider foolish.  If you grant the state the power to order your life there will be no end to it.  Right now, in Germany it is illegal to homeschool one's own children!  Every day brings a new example of governmental overreach.  We do not exist for the state; the state exists for us.  Our wealth is ours, not the state's.  We don't have to justify our keeping; they have to justify their taking.

Please no liberal nonsense about an 'epidemic' of obesity or obesity as a public health problem.  True, we Americans are a gluttonous people as witness competitive eating contests, the numerous food shows, and the complete lack of any sense among most that there is anything morally wrong with gluttony.  The moralists of old understood something when they classified gluttony as one of the seven deadly sins.

Obesity is not a disease; so, speaking strictly, there cannot be an epidemic of it.  I know that 'epidemic' is used more broadly than this, even by epidemiologists; but this is arguably the result of an intrusion of liberal ideology into what is supposedly science.   Do you really think that 'epidemic' is being used in the same way in 'flu epidemic' and 'obesity epidemic'?  Is obesity contagious?  If fat Al sneezes in my face, should I worry about contracting the obesity virus? There is no such virus.  Obesity is not contagious and not a disease.   I know what some will say: obesity is socially contagious.  But now you've shifted the sense of 'contagious.'    You've engaged in a bit of semantic mischief.  It is not as if there are two kinds of contagion, natural and social.  Social contagion is not contagion any more than negative growth is growth or a decoy duck is a duck. 'Social' in 'socially contagious' is an alienans adjective.

Why then are you fat?  You are fat because you eat too much of the wrong sorts of food and refuse to exercise.  For most people that's all there is to it.  It's your fault.  It is not the result of being attacked from without by a virus.  It is within your power to be fat or not.  It is a matter of your FREE WILL.  You have decided to become fat or to remain fat.  When words such as 'epidemic' and 'disease' are used in connection with obesity, that is an ideological denial of free will, an attempt to shift responsibility from the agent to factors external to the agent such as the 'evil' corporations that produce so-called 'junk' food. 

There are public health problems, but obesity is not one of them.  It is private problem resident at the level of the individual and the family. 

George Will on the Liberal-Collectivist Agenda

Excerpt:

The collectivist agenda is antithetical to America’s premise, which is: Government — including such public goods as roads, schools and police — is instituted to facilitate individual striving, a.k.a. the pursuit of happiness. The fact that collective choices facilitate this striving does not compel the conclusion that the collectivity (Warren’s “the rest of us”) is entitled to take as much as it pleases of the results of the striving.

Warren’s statement is a footnote to modern liberalism’s more comprehensive disparagement of individualism and the reality of individual autonomy. A particular liberalism, partly incubated at Harvard, intimates the impossibility, for most people, of self-government — of the ability to govern one’s self. This liberalism postulates that, in the modern social context, only a special few people can literally make up their own minds.

Demands of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Protesters

Here is a list of their individually puerile and jointly inconsistent demands.

One wonders how

Demand nine: Open borders migration; anyone can travel anywhere to work and live

is consistent with

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system

and

Demand four: Free college education.

Libertarians believe in the foolish notion of open borders, presumably because they cannot think in any but economic terms; but at least libertarians are intelligent enough to realize that one cannot combine open borders with a full-tilt welfare state that provides 'free' health care, 'free' college education, etc.   The anti-capitalist punks, utopian dumbasses that they are, dream the impossible dream of a welfare state that allows millions upon millions to flood in to grab the goodies that the government will magically provide for them.

Welcome to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Max Scheler, George Orwell, Ressentiment, and the Left

Max Scheler describes a form of ressentiment that leads to "indiscriminate criticism without any positive aims." (Ressentiment, ed. Coser, Schocken 1972, p. 51) Although Scheler was writing in the
years before the First World War, his description put me in mind of contemporary liberals and leftists, especially when they are out of power. He continues:

This particular kind of "ressentiment criticism" is characterized by the fact that improvements in the conditions criticized cause no satisfaction — they merely cause discontent, for they destroy the     growing pleasure afforded by invective and negation. Many modern political parties will be extremely annoyed by a partial satisfaction of their demands or by the constructive participation of their representatives in public life, for such participation mars the delight of oppositionism. It is peculiar to "ressentiment criticism" that it does not seriously desire that it demands be fulfilled. It does not want to cure the evil: the evil is merely a pretext for the criticism. We all know certain representatives in our parliaments whose criticism is absolute and uninhibited, precisely because they count on never being ministers. (Ibid.)

About a generation later, on the other side of the Channel, George Orwell wrote in a strikingly similar vein in his "The Lion and the Unicorn":

The mentality of the the English left-wing intelligentsia can be  studied in half a dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these papers is their generally negative     querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who have never been and never expect to be in a position of power.

Not much has changed.  

A Summary of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

If you want to understand the Left, their tactics, their ruthlessness, and their imperviousness to ethical considerations, then you need to read Alinksy.  Summary here.  You will then understand what is behind the outrageous attacks of leftist scum bags, such as this guy, on conservatives.  They see politics as warfare, and they believe the end justifies the means.

The Slanderous Left

When they lie about us we must tell the truth about them.  We must expose them for the moral scum that they are. The examples of their hate-driven mendacity are legion, but here is a particularly egregious instance of race-baiting slander.  Representative Andre Carson, D-Indiana, a leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the following: 

Some of these folks in Congress would love to see us as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree . . .

Gibson Guitars and the Totalitarian Left

ES-335 TD 
My title is not meant to suggest that there is a totalitarian Left and a non-totalitarian Left; the Left as Left is totalitarian.  There are innumerable examples.  I was once a proud owner of a Gibson ES-335 TD (pictured above). I foolishly sold it during a period of youthful poverty.  Dumbest thing I ever did.  So this attack of our leftist government on Gibson caught my eye. Excerpt from the article by Bob Barr:

In 2000, Charlton Heston, then serving as president of the National Rifle Association, and fighting gun control proposals, held a flintlock rifle over his head and declared famously, “from my cold dead hands.” Gibson’s CEO needs to rally freedom-loving Americans similarly; raising a Les Paul Gibson guitar over his head. All Americans who believe in freedom and limited government should come to Gibson’s defense; not just those who are guitar players.

Another recent example of governmental overreach is the 'lunch-line bully' legislation which makes of bullying at a school a police matter. 

Here again we see demonstrated the complete lack of common sense on the Left, and a fundamental difference between Right and Left.  Conservatives solve problems at the  individual level, or at the local level of the family, the church, the school, the neighborhood.  They bring government in only as a last resort, and then local government before state government before federal government.  The approach is bottom-up.  The leftist approach is top-down.  A fundamental difference. 

Bill Clinton, the Race Card, and Voter ID

Race Card - Bill Clinton Say it ain't so, Bill.  This from the The Wall Street Journal:

The last time Bill Clinton tried to play the race card, it blew up his wife's primary campaign in South Carolina. Well, the Voice is back, this time portraying the nationwide movement to pass voter ID laws as the return of Jim Crow.

"There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today," the former President warned a student group last month.

I find this simply astonishing.  How can any reasonable person find the Voter ID question worthy of debate? 

Anyone with common sense must be able to appreciate that voting must be conducted in an orderly manner, and that only citizens who have registered to vote and have satisfied the minimal requirements of age, etc. are to be allowed into the voting booth. Given the propensity to fraud, it is therefore necessary to verify the identities of those who present themselves at the polling place. To do this, voters must be required to present a government-issued photo ID card, a driver's license being only one example of such. It is a reasonable requirement and any reasonable person should be able to see it as such.

Why are liberals so stupid?  The darker surmise, of course, is that they are not stupid but cunning and unprincipled: they want voter fraud.  They want to win at all costs, fraud or no fraud.

And please notice how leftists like Clinton will not hesitate to commit a tort on the English language  if it serves their purpose.  Clinton implies that an identity check would limit the franchise of blacks.  Preposterous. There is also the slam against blacks.  Those of my acquaintance don't live under bridges and they do manage to do things like cash checks.

Clinton famously stumbled over the meaning of 'is.'  Apparently he is equally challenged by the meaning of  'franchise.'

Pee Cee Christians

Do some Christians have a death wish?  Campus Crusade for Christ has changed its name, dropping 'crusade' and 'Christ.' 

And then they have the chutzpah to say they are not bowing to political correctness.

There is nothing wrong with unintentionally causing offense to people who take offense inappropriately.  If 'crusade' and 'Christ' are offensive to you, then that is your problem.  This thought is developed in Of Black Holes and Political Correctness.

And besides, Christianity is offensive to the natural man.  It is supposed to be.

‘Home Grown Terrorists’

That's politically correct jargon for Muslim terrorists who happen to be Americans.  The liberal media shies away from the accurate phrase 'Muslim terrorist.'  But it doesn't hesitate to label Anders Behring Breivik a Christian terrorist despite the lack of evidence of his being a Christian, a fact that even Sam Harris notes. Don't you love liberals with their double standards, their moral equivalency 'arguments,' their lack of intellectual honesty, and their thought-stifling PeeCee mentality?

Zero Tolerance and the Death of Common Sense

(Here is a fine rant from the old blog.  Originally appeared 23 August 2007.)

Is common sense dead? Apparently, given the large number of incidents like the one reported in this story of a boy who was suspended from school for merely drawing a picture of a gun. And this  occurred in Arizona of all places, where one might expect some old-fashioned common sense to still exist, as opposed to some such haven of effete liberal idiocy as the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.

How does one deal with idiots? With those impervious to reason? For example, how deal with the sort of liberal idiot who thinks that the use of the perfectly good English word 'niggardly' involves a racial slur? You may recall that some poor guy lost his job over this a few years back.

Is there any connection between these two cases? The mind of a liberal is like a bowl of mush in which anything can transmogrify into anything else. Nothing is well-defined, nothing is what it is. Anything can be associated with anything else. So a mere drawing of  gun, by a strange associational 'logic' becomes a gun. The prohibition of guns on campus becomes a prohibition of doodles of guns. The harmless teenage doodler becomes a deadly threat to his classmates. A paper 'gun' assumes the dangerousness of a loaded gun. Other distinctions go by the board, as when liberals talk, as they constantly do, of guns killing people, when no gun has ever killed anyone.

Similarly, the sound of 'niggardly' reminds someone of the sound of 'nigger' and so 'niggardly' is taken to mean nigger-like so that the property of being a racial slur get tranferred back upon the innocent word.

Is it the inability to think straight that defines the politically correct? Or the unwillingess? Or both?

Liberals love the 'disease model.'  Perhaps they should apply it to themselves.  Treatment is what they need, not refutation.  Some notions are beneath refutation.