All I can say is, wow!
I surf around a lot of blogs, yet I can honestly say that I have NEVER read a more powerful portrayal of the contradiction between the stated ideals of the left, and the methods of implementation given to these by those who gather under this flag.
The question that must be asked is then, how did this come to be?
My own answer to this, is simply, fear.
Yet, how could such intellectual and spiritual fear become seemingly so widespread?
In my more optimistic moments, I like to believe that those of the rabid left, aren't as great in their numbers as they appear to be. That it more a case of over representation by MSM, who, in this, realize that old truism, that you can fool most of the people some of the time.
At other times though...
Great writing and well reasoned. many of us were Liberals, but have since become neo-conservatives. Not because our ideas changed, but because liberalism was taken over by the far left as a cover for radical ideas if one can call them that.
The need for the MSM and academics to feel mainstream caused them to keep pushing the middle left which in the long run is a failed policy. It doesn't take a very long time for the vast majority of people to now reside on the right of a corrupted middle.
Oh, Doc, you're going to get so slammed for this. Not because it's false - but because it's so self-evident when it's pointed out.
Had a feeling there was something really wrong with the academic/feminist ideology during the Clarence Thomas hearings - when a friend of mine said that Anita Hill's accusations had to be true because no woman would make something like that up - and then Clinton got a pass because women make up rape allegations all the time. So which is it? Women as truthful victims, or pathological liars? I tried to point out the dichotomy in the thinking, to no avail.
You're speaking truth to power. (Or, to folks who wish they had power.) I never expected to see something like what the left has devolved into outside of something like "Atlas Shrugged".
J.
WOW! I'm speechless. This is fabulous. I never expected to see someone put this all together. As a gay person, I have found my stomach turning whenever the left "defends" me and marches in my name. I enjoy unparalled freedom here (and I don't consider it a basic right to "marry" someone--I already have the right of free association. What does marriage have to do with it? Marriage was invented for male and female and children. That's my thought anyway. I'd rather we gay Americans establish a different celebration of our unions. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Great job, doc!
When I was twenty(some 25 years ago) had I known the Feminist movement was overtaken by the Marxist cause I would have protested the Feminist movement for infecting us with a horrid virus called Equalization.
Some Equalization!
So Gloria Steinam burned our bras only to leave a legacy of sagging silconed DDD breasts worn on ex-laxed induced anexorics screaming helpless vicims of everything while concerned only with the plight of Eve Ensler's vagina whose tensions can only be relieved when entering the paradise found in Hugh Hefner's bed.
Listen Ladies of Equalization I want my Liberty and my womb back please. As far as I'm concerned I had all the rights I needed to be Liberated when Susan B Anthony fought for my right to vote. Free markets would have taken care of the rest. But no, Marxist Feminism just had to take us all down The Road to Serfdom to be enslaved by the System.
you must be the biggest asshole in the blogsphere. you suck.
Superb insight. cogent and well written. If nothing else, you have shown that logic and truth are antithetaical to the pablum that passes for 'serious' discussion today.
This is an example of why the very best of bloggers count. They- you - are the pamphleteers of this generation.
Must be one of those highly educated Leftist whose only intellectual thought is "you suck." Probably a patriotic college professor also. And one wonders why with the intellectual capacity exhibited the Left might have a few problems convincing others they have a brain.
Well done, neo-neocon. In the late '60s or early '70s, William F. Buckley termed the viewpoints he and his magazine (National Review) expressed "classical liberalism".
A comment on "when the Civil Rights movement went mainstream". What I observed within the more 'conservative' portions of the body politic was a light dawning. That all men are created equal and the inherent rights of individuals --- ideas they'd been trumpeting against socialism and communism --- applied regardless of race, creed, or color. All men includes blacks; individuals can be black (or Jewish or whatever). The words content of their character, not the color of their skin resonated very, very strongly.
And, in a moment, the conservative movement (in the main) corrected its error.
Since then, the Left has adopted the error of judging based upon the color of skin, not the content of character.
Thank you, crosstalk. I agree with your point about how the light finally dawned regarding civil rights. And I am honored that you think I'm neo-neocon, but she actually has her own blog here which you might want to check out if you haven't already!
Dr. Sanity was so affected by the 9/11 attacks that she...decided to start a blog bitching about American liberals.
Gee, thanks for your service.
Excellent post, Doc!
After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?
I'm Puerto Rican, and my experience is that anyone who the Left considers part of a "minority" will be welcome ONLY if they toe the ideological line.
Anyone else is to be treated like Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, derided, insulted, and dismissed.
The Left of today is considerably different from the liberal Left that I became acquainted with during my college years in the late 60’ and early 70’s....
Those glory days when the Left believed in freedom and individuality;
Yes, this is true. If you can ignore Walter Duranty and his ilk from an earlier era. Duranty, in his mind, believed in freedom and individual rights as he whitewashed the atrocities of Stalin's Russia.
And if you believed his lies, it's no surprise that you believed the phony lies of the sixties left.
And while judging a man by the content of his character is the right thing to do, it is not the business of government to legislate, unless you're willing to sacrifice actual, valid property rights to so called 'civil rights'.
The left has never been good for anything more than death in the socialist countries and a tearing down of the edifice in the western countries.
It's gut busting funny that you admire the likes of a Hitchen. An avowed marxist/socialist, you give him credit for telling the truth, which is the norm and no credit is required. This is how low you've sunk and gullible you are.
If a socialist is speaking the truth about something, it's only because he's in step-back mode, collecting the gullible in preparation for his next go at utopia.
When will you learn, when?
Re: Hitchens. I think the doc is just refreshed at the idea that you can actually talk to him. That is unusual for someone on the Left. She had a post up about Hitchen's debate with Galloway and she expressed dismay at his inabilty to take his excellent reasoning --which he used against Georgie--to its logical conclusion. I remember that she even expressed hope that someday Hitchens might actually do that and end up a conservative. (sorry, I don't remember when that post was up). Stranger things have happened. The point is that you can reason with a Hitchens. Most on the Left gave up reason a long time ago.
> The twin children of Marxism—communism and socialism—have spawned the bloodiest and most sociopathic despots in world history
20th Century Democide
> you must be the biggest asshole in the blogsphere. you suck.
The intellectual left responds as usual...
> The point is that you can reason with a Hitchens. Most on the Left gave up reason a long time ago.
> you must be the biggest asshole in the blogsphere. you suck.
'nuff said.
Wild speculations approaching, put tin-foil hat on now.
1). The 60's saw the rise of a youth-centered subculture that elevated of the rejection of adult authority, in all of its forms, to the level of a moral imperative. But the 18-year-old hippie of 1968 eventually has to grow up sometime. So how does one mature into adulthood if one's sense of self identity has been built on the very rejection of all of those notions that defined adulthood?
2). Two distinguishing hallmarks of maturing into adulthood are the adoption by an individual of the following traits: a sense-of-self where one is no longer the emotional center of one's universe and the accepting of personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
3). The civil rights movement that grew out of the 50's saw the appearance of a line of thinking that said as victims of society, individual members of a victim group should not be held personally responsible for their actions, that as victims of society, individual members of a victim group were due special considerations and that it is a moral obligation on society as a whole to take care of the individual members of said victim group.
4). Somehow the hippie youth of the 60's that couldn't grow up found their answer to the question raised in #1 above, by becoming a part of or identifying himself or herself with a particular victim group.
5). The resulting merger of these two disparate ways of thinking has somehow spawned a new, seductive and addictive species of human consciousness, that basically says "you can have your cake and eat it too, since society owes it to you" and that has, unfortunately, been adopted by a critical mass of individuals in our modern society.
6). It's undeniable that there is a strong society-as-parent to victim-as-child dynamic going on in our society today. But this is a fiction that a free society can only sustain for so long before reality, in some form, must come crashing back. And I would suggest that much of the political positioning as well as the efforts at social engineering we see coming from the politically liberal-left side of out society can be viewed as attempts, by that critical mass of individuals in our society, to prolong this fiction as long as possible.
Wild speculations past, take tin-foil hat off now.
In other words, what I think happened was that sometime around the 70's a critical mass of individuals within our society made a devils bargain. In exchange for the opportunity to live in a state of perpetual adolescence, one gives up the right to be an autonomous empowered individual member of society and becomes a "child" to society's "parent".
Dr. Sanity, If I may say so, your major failing as a controvertialist is that you do not cite, you do not quote, and you do not name personally the adversaries you are talking about.
One of your commenters above has called this post great writing and well reasoned. Perhaps it is, but it really ought to be reasoning about something concrete and something your adversaries--with specific personal names and writings which can be read--actually have to say.
It isn't.
There is but one piece of evidence offered in this whole "rather long post"--a story about a black Republican politician being called an Uncle Tom and pelted with oreo cookies.
This is, of course, deplorable, but it is hardly enough to sustain the elaborate architecture of your argument.
I know this is a common failing of so many in the Right blogosphere, but it is no less intellectually suspect.
A controvertialist who does not quote is usually one who does not take time to read, or at least to read things which challenge their prejudices rather than coddle them. Taking time to do this is one of the reasons I, as a Liberal controvertialist, am here.
I don't know whether this is so in your case, but if you did cite and quote I would be resonably certain that you had read, with real care, something besides opinion saying more or less the same things as you are.
Bluntly, you are living in a nightmare world of controversy with no real human beings in it, only abstract bogeymen and scarecrows: Islam, The Left, The Mainstream Media, Modern Feminists, ect. ect.
Now I am a Liberal, I have a name, and I can say three things which you can quote and pick apart if you are up to it:
The religion of Islam as a whole is not going to go away no matter what we personally think of it. What we do in the world has to adapt to this fact.
George W. Bush is losing the war against terrorists, both in terms of Homeland Security and of foreign policy, and he has created the conditions which will lead to a nuclear Iran which can sponsor terror indefinitely and without serious penalty.
There is a persistent pattern of political corruption and disrespect for law centered in the major leaders and behind the scenes fixers of the Republican Party.
It is so in my state, Ohio, and it is so on the national scene--indictment following indictment, investigation following investigation. The names thrown up so far are Noe, Taft, Rove, Frist, DeLay, and Libby. The pattern in all cases is the same: cupidity, arrogance, and disrespect for law.
I make no claim to be a person of "goodwill and honesty", "capable of genuine insight", or one who "has not completely abandoned all rational thought." But I can quote. And I can name names.
Can you?
You hate capitalism. Also, you have alliances with terrorists.
I can think, Mr. Marshall. Sometimes I even have an original thought of my own (e.g., no reference) This is not an academic publication--it is a blog. You can read previous posts on the same subject which have other citations. But I have no particular need to prove to you my academic qualifications. You will have to await my next book to obtain all the citations. And if you are interested, you are certainly free to check out my many formal academic publications--including my book--to make sure I am capable of quoting and naming names and doing things in the "scholarly" way.
Consider the ironies of Mr.Marshall's ego-tripping bullshit critique of your passionate piece. His bloviating exactly illustrates the twisted thinking of the socialists that you have so aptly pointed out. The only citation you need is this x-ray view of the inner workings of the "we know what's best" croud on the loony left.
I share your passion.
Bingo! I've lately included you on my daily list of "must-reads".
I think Wildiris above is absolutely right on this as well. I've been thinking about this lately, how badly it affected our culture when the hippies asked themselves the big questions (life, the universe and everything) as if they had never been asked before and then answered them with all the wisdom and experience of a LSD-addled teenager. It's like they hit a big 'reset' button and all the wonderful philosophy, history, and progress that made our civilization so great were all erased from memory.
Like when a kid who doesn't believe his mother that washing down a bunch of Halloween candy with pop and running around the neighborhood will make him sick is surprised to find himself queasy the next morning.
You make a lot of good points and I agree with some of what you wrote, and of course, disagree with some of it.
First - as you point to the 60's and 70's where the liberal ideas were born. You seem to forget that many of the same types of outrageous and over the top liberal groups were in existence than as they are now. It just that now, many of the ideals that once were revolutionary are now mainstream, and only the over the top groups are still there making noise. The vast majority of liberals are not fighting to enact the ideals of the far left any more now than the vast majority of liberals agreed with them in the past (eg. black panthers, PLA, etc).
Second - the liberal agenda has shifted to other issues. Health care, privacy, jobs, etc, and to stop what we see as an attempt to backslide the country away from what has been achieved. The fringe left no more represents the ideals of the average liberal than the fringe right of Fred Phelps, Dobson, Perkins, Coulter, etc, represent the ideals of the average conservative.
Third - while the left has gone through changes, so has the right. The core values of the classical conservative are no longer as prevalent either (e.g. smaller, less intrusive government).
Fourth - Liberal values seem to work. The more progressive states have the lowest poverty, divorce rates, child abuse rates, infant mortality, child birth out of wedlock, etc. While the most conservative states (with the exception of Utah) tend to have the highest. Progressive states tend to have better educational systems, health care, and lower gun violence. I can't see any justification in changing our value system to be more like the red states.
When you discuss at length the qualities of "the left" without quoting a single actual person you are involved in projection of your disavowed shadow onto an abstracted enemy of your own creation.
There is a persistent pattern of political corruption and disrespect for law centered in the major leaders and behind the scenes fixers of the Republican Party.
Does the name "Sandy Berger" ring a bell? Have you heard of the attempt by a Democrat party boss in Illinois to have a witness in a vote fraud case murdered? What about the pattern of vote fraud around the country, centered on Democrat organzations and areas?
Certainly there are Republicans who have run into trouble with the law. If they have actually broken the law, they should pay the price. Did the Democrats say the same when Clinton committed perjury? No! They declared it a horrible crime that he was even being held responsible!
But I can quote. And I can name names.
But, oddly, you can only do it if they have an (R) after their names.
When you discuss at length the qualities of "the left" without quoting a single actual person you are involved in projection of your disavowed shadow onto an abstracted enemy of your own creation.
There are, in fact, quotes in what she wrote. They are not attributed explicity, but in at least two cases I can tie them directly to specific individuals. Besides, quotes are not the only way to establish a fact, you know.
Do you, for example, deny that feminist organizations defended Clinton despite his involvement in what would be a clear case of sexual harassment with Monica?
Do you think the following never happened?
a feminist academic actually swooning at the mere mention of the possibility that such biological differences might play a role in women’s lives
It's not necessary to provide citations for common knowledge, and Dr. Sanity's arguments are based on events and statements that are clearly common knowledge. To deny them is, I think, to demonstrate one of her points.
Dingo,
What's "progressive" mean, and what are the values that you want to keep?
Are we talking Red State Blue State? My state was blue in 2000, but red today although we have a Democrat governor and a strongly Democrat legislature. Are we progressive?
I'd also like to understand how progressive values cause the effects that you cite. For example, you cite lower gun violence as a result of progressive values, but I'd guess that gun control is a progressive idea, and yet concealed carry laws seem to positively correlate with lower crime.
Just wondering.
Copithorne - Oh please. Their quotes are public record. Do you live on Mars? And besides, I am interested in how their behavior significantly differs from their stated goals. People can say anything (you did, for example) but what they do is what counts.
"I know this is a common failing of so many in the Right blogosphere, but it is no less intellectually suspect." Marshall
Oh no, another variation of the Left's You're stupid, we're smart meme. It's getting rather old.
But Clinton! But Clinton!
"...Or that the Iraq war is being fought to benefit the oil companies."
Not entirely for oil..
..but still a big part:
MAPS AND CHARTS OF IRAQI OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
071...071703.c_.shtml
"..but still a big part"?
There is no such credible evidence.
Joseph -
it's a fair question for all,
myself included,
but you seem attached to your views
as much as Pat.
as one poster pointed out,
you can quote and name names,
but the people that populate your lists are all of one political persuasion...
neither party has a monopoly on ethical failings,much as *both*
would like to claim the other
is "much worse than they".
you'd never know it from contemporary
dialogue,but there are big advantages to a two party (or multiple party) system.
do you purposely come to a conservative blog to try to raise your own and other's blood pressure?
you seem more fond
of arguement than dialogue.
why is that?
___________________________
and BTW,
please go read my apology to you
in the "Israel out off the map NOW" thread.
Whose quotes are public record? You don't say.
Whose behavior is different from their stated goals? You don't say.
If you were having a conversation about the political views of other people, other people and their views would appear in your conversation. They do not because you are not.
Instead, you are presenting a disavowed dimension of your psyche, calling it "the left", and externalizing an intrapersonal conflict as a way of managing anxiety.
I'm not guessing or speculating here. This is all right on the surface.
how are you managing your anxiety
copi?
Old Dad,
legitimate questions - progressive values, as I see it and many of my left leaning friends see, it is that social welfare issues are moral issues. That affordable housing, equal access to health care, equal access to a good education, secured social security, recognition of homosexuals as legally equal, etc are progressive values. That, while we all hate to pay taxes, we are only as strong as our weakest link and if we need
Now, I am sure you will want to paint me a socialists, but I am not. I am just willing to tolerate a higher tax burden because I believe that good infrastructure and a minimum level of sustenance of citizens benefits us all. Spending more than less on education benefits everyone, not just those being educated. spending more than less on job training benefits everyone, not just the ones being trained. Spending more than less on healthcare benefits everyone, not just the ones being treated. Spending more than less on affordable housing benefits everyone, not just those being housed. I know that there are many who will abuse a strong social welfare system and we need to find ways to battle that. I also know there are inherent flaws in our current welfare system that create conditions that can hinder social mobility. I know there are a lot of holes in what I have written, but it is tough to go too in depth in a blog comment.
I have lived all over this country, in both red and blue states. Basically, what I have seen, is that it just tends to make good business sense. Yes, we pay higher taxes, but if I ever had to open my own business, without question, I would prefer a more progressive state.
I don't know what state you live in. Are you in New Mexico or Iowa? I used to live in Minnesota and I try to explain to my old friends there that consider themselves to be "staunch" conservative that they would be consdered flaming liberals in most of Mississippi.
As for the canceled carry laws, whether or not crime has gone down is very debatable. Crime has gone down nation wide, but cities like New York that bans hand guns is still much safer than all large Texas cites that allowed concealed weapons (DC being the exception to that trend). Statistically, states that have the highest gun ownership also have the highest death by guns (Utah being the exception). The issue turns much more on police enforcement than and the right to carry a gun. The rate of drop in crime is more in places with stronger gun control than cities that do not, so I don't really think the correlation that you are seeing is really attributed to your perceived cause.
Geez, copi, where'd all that psychobabble come from? That tripe simply looks like a smug method of trying to shut off dialog. And for your brain dead ability to simply understand what the Doc is talking about, let's try starting with the Wiki:
"In politics, left-wing, the political left or simply The Left are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism or social democracy/Social liberalism."
"Communism, as well as the Marxist philosophy that many base it on, and most currents of traditional anarchism are often considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics. Most left-wingers however reject any association with communism or anarchism."
It's the last sentence that I find hilarious, based on the cast of characters I've seen in photos of the recent anti-war demonstrations.
"[T]here was a time when both 'conservative' and 'liberal' shared the same classical values and ideas that together coalesced to form the promise of America—i.e., the promise of liberty for all.
We can again unite on this fundamental level...."
I agree that we must take the conversation to this very fundamental level. The question becomes: "What is liberty?"
We Americans disagree about the very nature of liberty, and this is the source of our problems.
On one side, liberty is about rights "endowed by our creator", and these rights must be protected by law. For example, opportunity is good.
On the other side, liberty is about "what is good", and this also must be protected by law. For example, fairness is good.
We would be helped if we realized that this is the argument we are having.
Walkercot, is it your understanding that Dr. Sanity is talking about Marxists? I don't know any Marxists myself. Do you? Who do you have in mind? Who do you think she is talking about?
The title of the post is "The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of today's Left." It is a jeremiad rather than the beginning of a dialog, but I am still doing my best to be constructive and refrain from simple name-calling.
I see Dr. Sanity did reach for an updated example of an unnamed blogger who called a Black Republican running for senate a "Simple Sambo." This is the intellectual and moral bankruptcy to which she refers.
Some of Dr. Sanity's umbrage is expressed as a sense of victimization that she is not at liberty to call people "Simple Sambo."
Leaving that aside, this unnamed person is engaged in empty name-calling. I wouldn't expect this to be a real reason why someone would vote for or against this candidate. To me the intenstity of Dr. Sanity's emotional reaction and the content of the offense described are not in proportion.
Perhaps it is also our two-party system. Consider: if the country is being led by a president who is doing everything right, but the opposition is hungry for power anyway, what alternative do they have other than to appeal to hatred-inspiring personal attacks?
Some of these are very, very well-crafted. In fact, they are so good they backfire! Here is a link to one of the best. It is very entertaining, and shows just what sub-grade level the lefties will descend to.
Copithorne,
Perhaps not in a direct fashion, but rather the legacy of Marxism, as the article states:
"These theories all have one thing in common. They all perfectly fit into a discredited Marxist framework that thinks only in terms of the dialectical of "oppressed vs. oppressors". This framework allows them to continually fan the fires of class warfare and thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a remarkably convenient intellectual and moral tool for any group that doesn’t actually possess any solutions to real world problems."
Or didn't you read it fully?
Finally, if you honestly think she's ticked off because she can't call others derogatory names in an effort to belittle and demean them, then there's little point in discussing the article with you.
> I am just willing to tolerate a higher tax burden because I believe that good infrastructure and a minimum level of sustenance of citizens benefits us all.
Good for you, Dingo! Feel free to donate as much as you want to the cause of your choice.
...dipping into my pocket to fund things you feel important is... "Socialism".
If your socialistic ideas actually WORKED to promote the things you espouse, hell, *I* might even get into lockstep with you on them (I'm not exactly against those concepts, I just consider them idealistic and, on the whole, unrealistically so).
The problem is, most of the liberals won't acknowledge when a program has utterly, abysmally failed, and they refuse to say, "OK, that did not work. Let's stop funding that ineffective meme and look for a more effective one that might work instead to put our money into." No, the solution is *ALWAYS*, without fail more money, -more- -money-, MORE MONEY!!!
Hence we have higher taxes than at any time in normal, peacetime history and lots of programs (such as modern public schooling, or social security, or aid-for-the-poor) which are absolutely dismal failures.
Also:
> The vast majority of liberals are not fighting to enact the ideals of the far left any more now than the vast majority of liberals agreed with them in the past
Really? Then why do the Dems keep pushing forth the farthest left idiots that they can find to run against the GOP? Why did they pick a moonbat loon like Dean to run the Dems? Why is it that Ralph Nader, who used to be on the fringe left, is now well right of center for the left (Moore, Kucinich, Dean, Kerry, all manage to make Nader look almost like a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society)...
This annoys me to no end, because it means that the GOP CAN and DOES abandon its core conservative values, because anyone who supports centrism sure as hell *isn't* going to vote for the Dem candidate. If the Dems had put forth Lieberman, for example, I would most likely have voted for him over Bush... Instead they put forth the farthest left and the fourth farthest left senators. Yeah, like I'm gonna reward them for *that*!?!?
As a direct result of their failure to stand up to the Dems on their stonewalling, social security reform obstruction, and other issues, I was fully prepared to vote *against* the GOP candidate -- no matter how close the election was -- in the 2006 elections. Dean and the moonbat patrol, though, have just made that thoroughly unacceptable. They just can't stop destroying any sense that they are a rational alternative.
So, despite my rather intense desire to vote against the GOP in the next election, I am going to vote for them in any and every case where my vote might be a swing vote.
"a shrill, insistent demand that all outcomes be exactly equal... or else."
This is a pure power play. Demanding something that is, definitionally, impossible, preserves a right to carp, condescend, and destroy because it's not achieved. Surprise! it's the upper hand forever -- until the logic is exposed. Good job here, doc.
"it is only one small psychological step further down this path for them to embrace the institutionalized misogyny of Islam."
A few months ago The New Yorker had a cover featuring a drawing of a pretty woman's face framed by an abaya. Collaged into the background were drawings of over-made-up, curled, flouncy white women looking frivolous and unappealing. The title of the drawing? Black is Back.
I was a feminist in the early 70s. Although there was a lot of idealism, hope, and "empowerment" among the troops early on, I think we were played from the very beginning by the "Movement," a frequent term of admiration in the basement student offices at Harvard Law in 1970.
No one had any intention of respecting us in the morning.
I thought you said LONG... I was expecting something along Freud's Analysis of Dreams.... Besides, there is so danged much material on this subject, you could write a set of volumes and STILL not cover it all. Great Job Dr. Pat, GREAT job!
> Spending more than less on education benefits everyone, not just those being educated.
Not if it's going into the rathole of the modern public educations system. A rathole is a rathole, no matter how much money you dump into it.
If you want to educate people, then give them school choice. Give them vouchers.
> spending more than less on job training benefits everyone, not just the ones being trained
Not if they aren't being trained for useful jobs. Train them to do construction work, sure. Training them to be english majors would be ludicrous. And the problem here is, how do we encourage people to use those funds correctly, for jobs of use to society? Throwing money at them just won't work. This sort of thing is what happens when you just throw money at a problem.
> Spending more than less on affordable housing benefits everyone, not just those being housed.
This depends on where and how. If it's just for subsidized rent, all it does is keep people in a place where there is insufficient employment infrastructure to support them. If there aren't any jobs in the inner city, why the hell would any sensible system PAY PEOPLE TO STAY THERE?
Sorry, if you live in South Central LA the best f***ing thing you can be doing for yourself and your kids is to MOVE. Pack up whatever you can and GO. If all you can carry are the clothes on your back, then get on a $^%%$@#$ bus and GO. Abandon that hellhole to the gangs until there is no one left but the gangs and then go in and clean the rathole out like it was central Mosul.
Interesting to read the comments and notice that most of those who disagreed with you tended to find fault with your methodology, but had few, if any, rational arguments refuting the substance of your remarks.
Dingo,
Thanks. What moral philosophy do progressives adhere to? Are progressives Christians? If there is no coherent progressive philosophy, how do progressives define moral behavior?
Walkercott, my contention is that if you aren't talking about actual people and their actual views, attacking "the left" is attacking your own projected shadow. It is quite common for people to create enemies as a way of regulating their own internal conflicts.
So far, no one has presented a single name of someone who fits Dr. Sanity's model. You seem as unable to do it as Dr. Sanity is. There isn't any actual person behind this picture of "the left" in the same way there isn't an actual person behind the picture of "the Jews" in the minds of an anti-semite.
I can see that Dr. Sanity doesn't feel constrained about calling people derogatory names. But her outrage about the nameless blogger who called someone a "simple sambo" is expressed in terms of feeling victimized that she is made to feel afraid of being criticized if she used an epithet like that.
> As for the canceled carry laws, whether or not crime has gone down is very debatable. Crime has gone down nation wide, but cities like New York that bans hand guns is still much safer than all large Texas cites that allowed concealed weapons
Dingo, this is one of my pet areas of attention. I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but I do read enough to want to know what idiot website/sources you got those claims from so I can openly shred them for you... just to set the record straight.
For example:
> Statistically, states that have the highest gun ownership also have the highest death by guns
Only when you throw in suicides, which usually make up no less than 3/4ths to 4/5ths of inflated "gun death" figures... and as though a suicide-contemplator who, lacking a gun, would go... "Aw, hell. I guess I'll live!" Yeah, I'll buy that one.
HOWEVER: Regardless of the outcome of such a discussion, it's moot, irrelevant, and immaterial.
The Right of Gun Ownership is not about crime -- not one whit, one iota, nor one smidgen.
The reason the Citizens are allowed to carry guns is openly, clearly stated by the authors of the Constitution themselves, in a missive called Federalist #46 which not only states, unequivocally, why it is necessary that it is the right of all citizens of the USA to carry guns, and also makes an absolute hash of the "National Guard==Militia" argument to boot.
Now, back to crime -- I'll cite, just for the heck of it, a few references -- they aren't something you should rely on for info, but they ought to give you something to search on if you question the overall conclusions.
===
Website:
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens reduces homicide rates. Using Florida's Department of State and FBI statistics, and do take note that Florida has a VERY LIBERAL concealed carry weapon permit law, since 1987 to year end 1995 we find Florida's homicide rate is down 27% while the nation's rate increased 8%, Florida's firearm homicide rate is down 34% while the nation's rate increased 28%, and Florida's handgun homicide rate is down 38% while the nation's rate increased 43%. Also, between 1993 and 1994 Florida's rates, respectively for the same categories, were down 7%, 17%, and 12% while under the Brady Act's requirements the nation's rates, respectively, only decreased by 6%, 5%, and 4%.
====
Website:
According to a CATO Institute research paper, "the 31 states that have 'shall issue' laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons." The paper also stated, "In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states."
By the way, if you truly want reliable statistics on this matter, the real solution is to assume the true facts are being massaged by both sides.
Hence, go to the Brady people and the DOJ for stats in support of gun ownership.
Go to the NRA for stats in support of gun control.
That way, if there is any skewing being done, it will likely be toward the truth of the matter.
So far, no one has presented a single name of someone who fits Dr. Sanity's model.
Just one person? I'll start with Cynthia McKinney. There are others, but she's been my mind's Platonic ideal of the unhinged leftist for a few years. Particularly since the Democrats ejected her because her statements were too hot after 9/11, then openly accepted her once the heat was off.
It wasn't her views they found objectionable, it was her timing.
Oh, and BTW -- I'm sure there's some way McKinney doesn't fit the model. I'm sure there's no one person that fits the model completely; that's because it's not the model of an individual but of a collection of individuals. You'll find some aspects of the model in some of the individuals, but rarely find all of them.
Well, Dr. Sanity, I am not talking about academic scholarship, I am talking about a real refutation of the views you disagree with. Let's quote you a little bit to demonstrate:
'the faux concerns about the “erosion of democracy and free speech”. This is plainly hilarious--particularly when it is their own ideological constructs of "multiculturalism" and "political correctness "that actively limits speech and makes a mockery of intellectual freedom.'
Now I don't believe for a minute that your speech has been limited or your intellectual freedom abridged one jot by either 'multiculturalism' or 'political correctness'. Were this so I would not be reading your diatribe about them on this blog.
They certainly have been no more abridged than my speech or intellect has been limited by the comment of byebye above: 'You hate capitalism. Also, you have alliances with terrorists.'
Now maybe you despise "multiculturalism" and "political correctness" and maybe you dislike the people who espouse them. I rather think you do.
These are difficult and painful emotions to manage, granted, but the mere fact that some group of people you dislike have views you despise--abridges no one's freedom.
Of course, since where you live [I know Ann Arbor quite well] is full of those same people and permeated with those same views that get your goat, I can see that you might have encountered some social difficulties, but no more so than I, say, have encountered on this blog.
But merely being made to feel uncomfortable by your adversaries is in no way an abridgement of your freedom of speech or your freedom of thought. We Americans are generally far too prone to confuse comfort with freedom. They really aren't the same.
Granted it is easier to for me to be perfectly comfortable with byebye, since I don't dislike him, don't know him, and don't take his evaluation of me very seriously.
After all, my private opinion of capitalism and my "alliances" with terrorists are obviously things that byebye cannot know the first thing about.
Now nothing that I have just written, quoting your views and opposing them, required any real academic scholarship on my part.
A level head and a willingness to take the words of one's political adversaries seriously are all that are needed.
But these are very difficult to sustain when you let views you disagree with get your goat.
Thanks Robert. I looked up Cynthia McKinney on Google and did a quick tour looking for quotes that could be plugged into Dr. Sanity's argument.
I didn't find much of anything. There is one piece of Dr. Sanity's argument talking about conspiracy theories. Cynthia McKinney is most famous for saying Bush knew about the dangers of 9/11. The comments I saw of Cynthia MckInney were not out of line with the 9/11 commission report and the August 7, 2001 PDB, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside US." They are certainly arguable points, not "moral and intellectual bankruptcy."
Do you think you'd have more success?
If Dr. Sanity were talking about actual political speech, it wouldn't be difficult to find a number of examples people who match up on most of her points.
I continue to propose that a much more coherent reading of this jeremiad is that Dr. Sanity is describing her feelings about herself.
Copithorne,
You might consider Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Carl Levin, and Teddy Kennedy in your search for unhinged lefties who meet Dr. Sanity's criteria.
You might start a separate but equally unhinged category for racist and fascist lefties from Maryland. If you are black, I suppose I'm now free to call you a Sambo. If you're white, I assume that I am authorized by Robert "Sheets" Byrd to call you a white nigger.
And then there are the sociopathic and mass murdering lefties; try Mao, Pol, Che, and Fidel for starters.
And speaking of Google. Try Googling "communist death toll."
Cheers
Wow, where to begin? I guess you could say I am a child of the 60's (and late 50's). When I was in high school in the 60's I resisted the allure of "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" because I was busy reading Ayn Rand and listening to Rachmaninoff. In the latter part of the 60's I spent 3 years in the army and learned to drink beer, smoke dope and like rock 'n roll. Also, during my last year in the army in California, I became acquainted with numerous hippie types and others who were of the left. I was attracted to and really tried to become part of that scene, but could never really pull it off. I observed the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement, etc., never really becoming a part of any of them, but mostly rooting for them. Having spent most of my life in small town middle America, most of those issues were never really front and center. Watching the failure of Carter and the success of Reagan, along with observing the tactics of the welfare pimps and the defenders of every anit-American regime in existence, brought me pretty much back to where I started. I long ago rejected Ayn Rand as an all-encompassing hero figure, but her description of the basic world conflict being the producers vs. the looters is looking more and more accurate as time goes on. In response to Mr. Marshall, I really don't need any references or quotes to justify this post. I've been watching this shit go down for 40 years now and everything Dr. Sanity said in this post rings totally true to me. For what it's worth, I haven't smoked any dope for something like the last 30 years, but I still like my rock 'n roll and I still like my beer, and I even still like Rachmaninoff.
KUDOS Doctor, for an outstanding post!
I think its interesting to see leftist replys and how they demonstrate much of what you described.
One wants names, apparently too lazy to read your past blogs or to watch the news.
Another who attempt to deflect your provable statements as a result of emotion, lol.
What I didn't see, from the left, is any cohesive and logical defense of the socialism, poverty pimping, "equal" outcomes, diversity ruling, appeasing, PC agendas you so eloquently described.
There was a feeble attempt by Marshall to say the left does'nt have a socialist agenda...before he described...a socialist agenda.
We can always hope that maybe, someday, a leftist will read your post, or others like it, and actually think about it. Maybe start searching for the truth, about why all these social programs (the fish) are never successful. Maybe they will see whats happening in France...a socialistic utopia they envision, who appease and appeal to radical islams humanity and compassion...truly, the RoP giving back to their community.
Very nice piece, nothing I haven't read before, but a very good f-n' aye piece nonetheless.
People who enjoyed this might like Fonte's piece 'The Ideological War Within the West' which is very similar, although the brevity is better.
Acessible online at the following URL:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/
diploma...deological.html
{blush} Sorry, Pat, for calling you neo-neocon. I was jumping back and forth too much. The honor may be yours, but the embarasment is mine.
If I had to limit myself to three blogs a day, yours and hers would be included. (The third would be powerlineblog.com.)
My apologies again.
> And speaking of Google. Try Googling "communist death toll."
----------------
(repeated from an earlier thread post):
----------------
Don't bother. Here's all the info you need... Note the preponderance of Marxism-based countries in these numbers, and the actual percentage of them attributable to Marxism-based countries, as well:
20th Century Democide
It's really simple:
Marx Lied, People Died.
What things did "Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Carl Levin, and Teddy Kennedy" say that match up with Dr. Sanity's points?
Is this a hard question to answer? Or is this an easy question to answer?
Reading Dr. Sanity's post, it seems as though she believes that these statements abound and that they are made by powerful people. Statements such as these so intrude on Dr. Sanity's life that she has "just about had it." But in this whole conversation neither Dr. Sanity nor anyone else has been able to come up with a single person making a single statement demonstrating "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" -- nevermind establishing a pattern described in this post.
Dr. Sanity violently exorciates a group of people she calls "the left." My questions have been simple. Who are you talking about? What are they saying that is so objectionable?
If it is difficult to answer these questions with actual people saying actual things, then what exactly is Dr. Sanity angry at?
copithrone considers Cynthia McKinney
rational,and her views are largely consonant with the findings of the 9/11 report.
Dr Sanity is projecting.
it's really just all in her head.
Copithorne,
Trolling is tedious, you little Eichman, you.
Old Dad & Mr. Bloody (or is that Mr. Hell) - I'll get back to you on monday. I am headed out of town for the weekend.
Copi - time too see a psychiatrist. because if you are not outraged by the lefty-loonies that the Dr S as well as other commentors have pointed out, I guess you have problem. A big out too, cuz you have lost your moral compass. Well, on 9/11 300+ of our fellow citizens were murdered, and the fake-Indian Prof Churchill stated that those folks deserved to be killed, and it was a good thing that the IslamoFascists did. Now if you willing to suppport those lunatics who said such things, you, Sir/Madam, are in need of help.
It is possible, and even healthy for people in a given society to have the opportunity to express dissenting opinions, but, engaging in sick behavior alongside the likes of Churchill and other leftist lunatics, well, that crosses the line. At least for those of us who consider ourselves open-minded, yet haven descended into the depths of self-hatred.
So...copithorne, since you can't comprehend the names and quotes already given, here and in past blogs, nor attribute them to the left, then obviously, you don't have any idea what you're asking for.
You seem to be fixated on power also. This says alot about your character.
I'm asking for a named quote demonstrating Dr. Sanity's presentation of "Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy." If you read Dr. Sanity's post and the 60+ comments no one has provided a single one. You can read through and verify it yourself. I had no idea it would be that difficult.
If Ronin could go to Ward Churchill's web site and find an actual quote, he'd be close. But he won't find anything like his crude paraphrase. You can't even find a third rate academic to support your point.
I take my point as demonstrated. You aren't talking about actual other people when you are talking about "the left." And if you aren't talking about actual other people, "the left" is constructed entirely out of your own shadow.
Copithorne said what I was basically planning to say when I clicked on the comments link. Hear, hear.
Bravo, Doctor. Ayn would be proud!
This is the perfect forward to your necessary book for 2006 titled "EXPOSING the PIMP MASTERS" the dead-end guide for liberal dummies! A must buy for all.
Freedom lovers will buy it to understand the id of todays Marxism.
The Marxists will buy it to divine their personal utopian PIMP.
My first read of your site was a great one, Thanks Doc.
Dr. Sanity, I hope the entire country gets behind Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and carries him right past that ugly Democrat racism and all the way to the U.S. Senate! Let's stand up to the Democrat racist ugliness!
Great points. This is my first visit to your blog, but after reading that post, I'll be back again! I didn't read through all the comments so I'm not sure if anyone else made this point, but I found it interesting that the AP picture, that accompanied the story about Michael Steele in your post, had Mr. Steele in a pose reminiscent of the Nazi salute. Coincidence? I doubt that. Even in an article supposedly decrying the racism injected into that Senate race, they still feel it necessary to somehow hint that Republicanism/Conservatism equals naziism. Subtle but it whips up the left without having to actually write a story that contradicts their worldview.
Dr. Sanity, great blog! My image of the Old New Middle Left hasn't changed
much since I attended a huge anti-war march in D.C. in April, 1971. My advice to these folks is to quit being so negative, and make up new chants that don't sound like "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Such and Such Has Got To Go!" It would also help if you folks would quit screaming into microphones, the sound systems work just fine!
An absolutely incredible piece. You have somehow gotten into my head and were able to put my thoughts into words.
Copithorne - if I mentioned the Holocaust, would I be required to name names, quote quotes, specify specific events and dates to be credible? Or is the Holocaust a mere shadow of my imagination....
Great piece, Dr. Sanity. Excellently expressed (in my humble opinion).
"After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them? This rather obvious fact, of course, goes a long way to explaining the rather peculiar attitude that the Left has toward any members of its various victim groups who actually escape victimhood and become successful, achieving and independently thinking adults! The previously altruistic and idealistic worldview is now merely a narcissistic one—and a malignantly narcissistic one at that—wholly preoccupied with the possession and retention of power for an elite few."
precisely. there's a book called *The Greeks and Envy* which points out that envious people like to condescend and help people who are beneath them, but they are intensely hostile to independent figures who can compete with them. since the "new left" feels that it is the moral cutting edge of the planet, it's especially hostile to anything it views as outside its hierarchy, hence its embrace of the palestinians no matter how viciously they behave (suicide terrorism, child sacrifice) and its moral hysteria about israel, no matter how well it behaves (eg jenin).
if you're twenty and not a socialist you have no heart
if you're forty and still a socialist you have no head
and if you're sixty and haven't figured out how to get the two communicating... you're lazy.
you clearly are not lazy.
congratulations
Hey! I'm not 60 either!! Still got a few years to go, so let me have my harmless delusions, please!
Wow, the plain truth really shines its own light, doesn't it?
I, too strongly believed in liberal views in the 1960s and early 1970s. I grew up in California and I was greatly inspired by the book Black Like Me. Then, in 1971 as a teenager, I moved to Alabama. It was a profound culture shock. It allowed me to see real prejudice side-by-side with real compassion (from every group).
The racism I saw in the South was not the hatred portrayed by outsiders (the hatred was more directed at outsiders than at Blacks). But it was worse: it was treating people as sub-human. When Southerners would say things like "Keeping the N*****s down" they viewed it the way you'd view keeping the dogs down off the kitchen table. It's not that you hate dogs, it's just that they don't belong on the kitchen table. I found that innocence of racism more horrifying than how it's portrayed in the movies. Nothing is worse than taking someone's humanity away.
I agree that today it's the conservatives/libertarians who are mostly pursuing "liberal" ideas: free markets, open competition, real democracy. Even something like gay marriage, most people are not willing to recognize gay marriage. My own view is that society is *far* more complicated than we give it credit for; we should be extremely careful when engineering the most basic building block of society. I think most people instinctively understand this but probably don't have words for it.
Perhaps the whole messy and painful period of the Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, and such is a necessary process of getting such "legislation" passed, not in the legal system, but in the hearts and minds of ordinary people. Because you can make all the rules you want, but in the end you must change people's views to accept it.
Outstanding piece. Best summary yet of the leftie derailment.
If we lose the Big War, (my term for the "war on terror", which is a terribly weenie term), if we lose the War, and those nice Religion of Peace people have their way here, they'll be thanking the Left for their service (having deliberately undermined this country) and then cheerfully lopping their yappy leftward heads off.
So much for freedom of . . . uh, anything.
Thank you for this excellent piece.
Dingo, you put Phelps in the same category as Ann Coulter? This is why "liberals" have no credibility. Phelps campaigned for Al Gore and is a psychotic child abuse who beat his infant child in front of his congregation and had his son's first wife murdered. I don't hold him against the left because he is truly a psychopath. Ann Coulter is nothing of the kind and to put her or any other philosophical conservative into the same category as Phelps is moronic.
Also, the "progressive" states you mention have very low minority populations. And if they don't, they have very high crime rates.
I love all the lefties on this thread pretending that since Dr Sanity didn't provide five hundred footnotes and three hundred quotes to her piece it is invalid. But of course whether she provides one or a hundred is really irrelevant. Anyone who pays the slightest attention to the news knows, for example, that the modern "civil rights" movement wallows in victimhood.
"Hey! I'm not 60 either!! Still got a few years to go, so let me have my harmless delusions, please!"
me neither, but as you point out, we're getting there. i personally don't think you have to wait to 60 until you get heart and head together, and you apparently don't either.
r
I only have a minor disagreement with your amazing essay, Dr. Sanity: that liberals originally championed the ideals of classical liberalism in the 60s. It's just that they did so quite conspicuously and in such an unprecedented way. Meanwhile, the stalwart backbone of America LIVED those ideals in their everyday lives - not squawking about it or announcing it on placards or in cute slogans. After all, one of the signature tricks of a "movement" is to adopt universally undeniable slogans - who'd disagree with "Freedom for All" or "We Shall Overcome"? No one - most mainstream Americans would say "good for you".
Nowadays, the Left continues that tactic, but with less idealism and more cunning manipulation when it adopts oxymorons such as "We support the troops, but not the war." They froth at the mouth if you question their patriotism, when back in the 60s, they'd have announced their anti-Americanisms from every rooftop. Beyond that, I find it absurd that the Left is "championing" the CIA. I mean, wtf? - they HATE the CIA...it's "evvvviiil". And since when did the UN become such a favorite? Why is it so crucial to the Left to cozy up to the UN, when it's clear that with every compromise to the UN, we lose our sovereignty in chunks?
I found this post to be very powerful and personal - as I've recently been experiencing a crises of faith in my own country. I am watching Americans tear apart other Americans on the stage of national politics, in order to bring down President Bush, never once batting an eye at the lives they are hijacking and ruining. Does it matter to the Democrats that a man might go to jail for 30 years, separated from wife, children, and grandchildren because he didn't remember a 2 1/2 year old conversation? No - as long as it's a blow against Bush - he's just an unfortunate pawn. Does it matter to them that soldiers are mocked and harangued at the very hospitals they are convalescing at? No, because it's a blow against The War. Does it matter that the ACLU is sytematically working at setting precedents within our own judicial system on the "little things" that will not be noticed until later - when they sweep away LARGER rights based upon "legal precedence"? No - because activist judges are the fastest sure fire way to enact their liberal agenda. Does it matter that our soldiers are being required to fight a war under the microscope of biased media coverage, thereby impeding them with a much more ruthless enemy embedded at their vulnerable backs? No - as long as the Left gets the images and experiences necessary to craft their campaign against the evil "Administration". Does it matter that there is a growing underground of illegal aliens stretching and incapacitating the infrastructure of our hospitals, schools, social welfare programs, national security, etc? No, as long as the Left has a burgeoning class of ready "oppressed victims" from which to draw their political power.
There's no real dialogue left! Everything has been said - a thousand times. Lines have been drawn and there's no budging from the hardline. I've had (or attempted to have) conversations with "everyday/common" liberals (not activists, just small-town neighbors) who shock me with their hardline approach. It becomes impossible to even gracefully agree to disagree - because they are so intent on shouting me down. I've even been mildly chagrined that I couldn't match their spitting vitriol! With that kind of mindless talking-point debate approach, how are we supposed to have a dialogue in this country? If the everyday Joe on the streets is a hardliner, too (not just the politicians), where do we go to gather under the umbrella of "America's Greater Good"?
It just seems to me that's there's NO common ground anywhere. We can't even come together to present a united front in the War on Terror - the biggest threat to face OUR generation. We don't have the same class and dignity and honor displayed by our forebears to unite in a national common cause!
The two sides have diverged so completely, that we're speaking two different languages! When did I become a "racist"? A "hate-mongerer"? A "bigoted asshole"? I'm not - but according to the Left, I'm the worst sort of Evil, all because of what I believe in - not because of any evil choices or actions on my part. I find that sort of labeling to be so common as to virtually lose its offensiveness! When the national dialogue has degenerated into the worst sort of name-calling, a reasonable person just wants to walk away - there's no way to speak to that.
I am so sick and tired of the rhetoric. There's no foresight into our long term future, nor does there seem to be any hindsight into historical perspective. All of it has left me feeling very burned out on what has become very dirty politics - with every man for himself and the sovereignty of our country at stake.
BradC, in answer to your question, I would also accept actual policies enacted by actual politicians as evidence towards illustrating "Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Left." That would even be stronger evidence than quotes you find from individuals.
Neither Dr. Sanity nor any of the 80+ posters in this thread have provided a single one of those, either.
Excellent post, Dr Sanity.
I notice that you've attracted the usual leftist trolls attempting to derail the discussion with endless, mindless quibbles -- a sure sign that you have hit the target.
Outstanding report Dr. Sanity! Thanks for taking the time to attempt communciation with all of us , especially those who are so embeded in their self-imposed multi-faceted blindnesses. Naturally , arguing for sake of argument seems to be a common trait for those who can neither see nor hear, past or present facts. That alone leaves them clueless about the future.
The fires that burned on 9/11 were hot but they're not going to take anyones word for it . I guess you would have to be able to quote one of the dead victims in order to satisfy the likes of the handful of fools (ie:copithorne/auguste) arguing about the undeniable .
Old Dad, Inferno Sanguinante Dell'OH, Ben Conrad, Obloody Hell, Solomon2, Robert Crawford, Crosstalk, as well as others, also my thanks to you for your contributions in trying to shine a light into the cavernous void.
What a crock. More slander and lies from republicans, why am I not surprised?
Pay attention Hmmmm, I am not a republican but I used to be a Democrat back when being one meant something good and they had a backbone. As I've said before, leaches are spineless and have no eyes nor any remembrance of history, save open mouth, bite and suck. Enjoy the ride until you pop!
Pretty good article overall. However, you should put yourself in your "PROFILES IN INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY" page for a couple of comments:
1) assuming that "The Left" are all soviet-loving Marxists.
2) assuming that "liberals" all agreed with the "little Eichmann's" comment. If you had seen Ward Churchill on Bill Maher you would realize that most people disagree with this comment.
3) assuming in the first place that you can lump everyone into "right" vs. "left".
My .02
Zelda,
Ann Coulter's "only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,"
Ann Coulter after 9/11 said that we needed to go to the middle east, "invade their countries, kill their leaders and make them all Christians."
Ann Coulter questioned how can "that old Arab, Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."
Ann coulter demeens the brave women who join the armed forces and fight for our country, calling them "silly little girls" and they make us less safe and hurt the military.
I have no problem putting Coulter and Phelps in the same sentance, especially someone who praises McCarthy. Both of them use Christianity as a means of justification for opression of others.
Pat, great post. Absolutely terrific. Keep up the good work.
Bloody,
"...dipping into my pocket to fund things you feel important is... "Socialism"."
No society works without a certain level of socialism. In order for business to succeed, we need infrastructure. In order for us to have an educated work force, we need schools and job training. In order for security of private property, we need courts, police and firemen. This cannot happen on an free market basis smoothly. For every dollar we pay in taxes we get a much higher return on it. Without all of the things that your tax dollars pays for, you would be earning a lot less than you do. That is just the way things work in reality.
"This depends on where and how. If it's just for subsidized rent, all it does is keep people in a place where there is insufficient employment infrastructure to support them. If there aren't any jobs in the inner city, why the hell would any sensible system PAY PEOPLE TO STAY THERE?"
There are good and bad ways to do this. Integrating subsidized housing into middle and high rent areas not only provides the work force necessary for these areas, it also enable social mobility for their children, breaking the cycle of poverty.
"Not if they aren't being trained for useful jobs. Train them to do construction work, sure. Training them to be English majors would be ludicrous."
I don't think there is any federal job training program for English majors. Correct me if I am wrong.
"Not if it's going into the rathole of the modern public educations system. A rathole is a rathole, no matter how much money you dump into it."
If the public school system is failing, I have no problem with this. But at the same time, you can't give up on the school system. Even with vouchers not everyone can afford private schools. If the public school is working fine, then there is no need for vouchers. My high school was better than every private high school in the state. Why would I need a voucher.
"I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but I do read enough to want to know what idiot website/sources you got those claims from so I can openly shred them for you... just to set the record straight."
DOJ. Sorry, but NYC is safer than Houston or Dallas. NYC has had a 350% drop in the homicide rate since it got tough on guns and crime in the early 90's. And using the dates you use, the South was higher than the northeast per capita wise for dun homicides. I have no desire to ban guns. It is in the constitution. You have that right. I respect that. But there is nothing unconstitutional about making sure that the only people who have guns are responsible citizens
Old Dad,
"Thanks. What moral philosophy do progressives adhere to? Are progressives Christians? If there is no coherent progressive philosophy, how do progressives define moral behavior?"
Progressives are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostics, etc. I am a Christian, and I believe my values are progressive. If you take out all of the sections in the new testament that Jesus IS NOT talking about helping the poor, curing the sick, etc, there is not very much of it left. It gets turned from a book into a pamphlet.
As for the philosophy. That is more complex. It is like trying to define the conservative philosophy. You will get a different answer each time. But, in general, it is that everyone is equal and should be treated as such. I don't think conservatives necessarily don't believe differently, but I, and many or my piers believe that we must all start on a equal playing field in order for this to be a truly egalitarian society. If we are to be judged on our merits and not pedigree, everyone should have the same access to education, jobs and health care. Otherwise we are not really as meritorious as we claim to be.
While I do not come from a tremendously wealthy family, I have been very lucky in my life. I had a top notch public education which helped me get into a top notch university. I worked for a couple of years and then went to a top notch law school which helped me get a job at a top notch law firm. Now, I make a very good living where I pay a lot of taxes (much more than it ever cost to educate me in public schools). I also know that if you were to take away the top notch public education I received, I would not be where I am today. I just want every other kid who want to achieve to have the opportunity. If I have to pay 35% instead of 33% in taxes, then so be it.
"Also, the "progressive" states you mention have very low minority populations. And if they don't, they have very high crime rates."
BTW Zelda, that statement is so blatantly wrong on so many levels I am not even going to touch it.
RE: Liberals' rants about 'suppression of free speech':
As long as pseudointellectual cockroaches like Michael Moore and Professor Nicholas DeGenova (author of the 'million Mogadishus' comment) are not fouling a prison cell with their treasonous stench, liberals have no factual basis for their claims of 'censorship' or suppression of free speech.
The psychotic quality that has always permeated collectivist Statism ("liberalism") stems in large part from a bipolar disorder rooted in extreme narcissism: The fundamental failure to distinguish personal from "political", that is, to appreciate a real world with consequences affecting sentient entities other than "liberal" protagonists themselves.
This is the artist's persuasion: That his creations have significance over and above mere colored canvases, blocks of chipped stone, marks on paper... it is a subtle fallacy, one of semiotics, conflating the symbol with what it signifies. But the Map is not the Territory. Pinter's idea that what does not affect him personally is thereby insignificant is reflected in all the so-called sophistication of his plays.
Pinter "speaks in silences"... like Cage's "Silent Symphonies" or Barnett Newman's "Empty Frames", his nihilism depicts only his own outlines. It is not uninteresting: Once. Repeated, such exercises degenerate to the purposeful gibberish of the later Joyce and Gertrude Stein. And that is where Pinter's rancid diatribes against everything free and open --the America that has rejected demogogues in favor of George Bush-- originates. He needs and wants those deathly silences, into which he pours mere words, because only thus can his own soulless disregard of others be fulfilled.
In past times, artists' Buddhistical "flower sermons" were life-affirming, liberating, positive. But from Existentialism onward, more especially to the nihilistic "deconstruction" of Derrida et.al. (all French, naturally), silences have become darkened, haunted-- the deathly stillness of a tomb. Not because Progress has failed, far from it-- it's just that Pinter and his ilk mean to stand apart, flaunting their talents as "sounds of silence" rather than chancing any critique or competition.
Chomsky's or Printer's true voice is not carefully crafted discourse, a "great conversation" among equals, but a "barbaric yawp" emitted at intervals as a warcry imploring their Nanny State to re-arrange the nursery. But there... if you would take this point, just wait for the next Chomsky/Pinter variation on Allahu Akbar. "Round the decay of that colossal wreck, The lone and level sands stretch far away."
John Blake sent me an e-mail pointing out my math error on the homiced rate in NYC. I did make a mistake. It was a 73% decrease, not 350%. It would have been 350% if it was an increase and not a decrease. My appolologies.
Dr. Sanity- wow, good post. And coming from A squared as well- grew up near there, so I know just how strong is the eejit tide yer swimming against.
Yo, copperhead- here's a quote from the article our author linked to:
"..The head of the state Senate in 2001 called Steele, then head of the state GOP, an "Uncle Tom." During Steele's 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor, Oreos were distributed at a debate, and an editorial in The (Baltimore) Sun said he brought little to the ticket but his skin color."
I would ask that you use your no doubt formidable research skills to ferret out a couple "examples" in the above selection. Apparently depressing your mouse button was too much an effort for you.
Additionally, I would like to set you a little homework assignment. Go to google, then search for photos of the anti-war/pro Hussein demonstrations that took place before Clinton's regime change legislation (circa '9
was put into effect by W. Look closely at the more finely rendered signs, and note the small advertisements for International A.N.S.W.E.R. to be found at the bottom of each.
Next?
Walker, you said:
"But merely being made to feel uncomfortable by your adversaries is in no way an abridgement of your freedom of speech or your freedom of thought."
Please pass this along to Tim "chill wind" Robbins- good grief, I never saw this guy so much as when he was being "censored".... I am most grateful he wasn't oppressed, else he'd have most likely been sitting at my breakfast table crying about it.
That'd be another example for you there, coppertone.
dingo,
a philosophy of "everyone is equal and should be treated as such" does not conform to reality. Individuals obviously differ in abilities; not everyone is cut out to be a lawyer, for example, and I'm sure you're glad of that - otherwise your position wouldn't provide you the monentary compensation it does.
We agree in one area of that philosophy - I believe that everyone should be equal under the law, and that equal opportunity should be offered to all. Unfortunately, equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcomes. Your own references to you being "very lucky" reinforces the facts of the impossibility of ensuring equal outcomes - your own classmates in your topnotch public school are examples. Offered the same opportunity, how many of them went on to achieve the level of success you did? Undoubtedly some did, just as some did not. How does the government spend tax dollars to take care of the inequality; why should it be tasked to?
By the way, you were not very lucky; you WORKED for your success, and took your education opportunities seriously to get the results you have. This is true of anybody, even in the worst schools out there - people excel if they want to.
I have no confidence in the government's ability to solve problems by throwing money at an issue. It comes with a political agenda every time, and never seems to be as effective as "progressives" would have us believe.
I have read Dr. Sanity's post and all the comments. I am weeping. As a nation, we are angry and shrill and full of hate and recrimination. We have stopped believing it is possible to tolerate fundamentally disparate beliefs. We've forgotten that no ideology has a 100% lock on the truth. Unless we find a way to talk with one another, respect the notion that we have differences, and take the best ideas and move forward with them, we are doomed to fail. Inexorably, America is becoming weaker and weaker, eaten from within by our own bitterness, disillusionment and divisiveness. Our nation has always had dissent and disagreement; we've thrived on the turbulent exchange of ideas. But, like it or not, we live in a sophisticated, competitive, interconnected world now -- a world of self-interests and threats unknown even 20 years ago. The world is moving too fast for the luxury of self-righteousness, moral absolutism and unyielding views, whether liberal, conservative, progressive or otherwise. If we don't wise up and start rebuilding, we citizens will bring down our nation ourselves -- we won't need any help from terrorists, China, the EU, hurricanes or God knows what else.
My capsuled view is that the left consists of people who are dishonest and/or stupid. That's it.
Those on the left have given up ideas to preserve their "industries" of power--whether it be in government (Democratic Party) of rights groups that are obsolete (Rainbow Coalition). They take any position and say anything to retain their power and to preseve their jobs. If the left made its money on buggy whips, they would have laws making everyone own one and convince just enough people that it was necessary.
Here's where they are dishonest and where the stupid people come in: those of the left wanting power and money deceive and lie to the stupid masses who will believe them and support them. These "stupid" people are typically, well...stupid--and maybe gullible, or they are idealists who have a poor view of history or unrealistic view of the future.
In any event, the left has no standards and no absolutes. With them, whatever it takes to gain their goals is permissable, no matter how distasteful or harmful.
One irony in this, is that they actually say the same things about the right. Either they don't know the right or I don't, but I think it's the former.
Nice job, Doc.
I regret the all the muddying of waters by far too much claptrap by your critics.
I'd like to throw mega copies of the GULAG ARCHIPELAGO at their colletive heads.
While many things are complex...some things are pig simple. Murderous dictators are bad. Societies that, by design, repress most of their citizenry are bad. Gad, most academics are (sadly) embracing immorality and claiming sainthood for themselves. I do wish they'd travel to some real awful places and live there for awhile.
Keep up the super work.
Retired Marine
Fabulous article. Really well done. I think we may share a brain. Apparently you had posession of it while writing this.
After reading some of the critical posts here, I would like to add:
Government protects and enables the human experience, which has to be based on the collective of individual experience--from the acquired wisdom from history, to the passions of the day, to our hopes for the future. The attempt to force reductionism on even a blog article implies that human experience, observation and insight have no value comparative to, for example, statistics. Or, that one should not have a perspective, theory and opinion, without spending days of time digging up detailed references to things that anybody who hasn't been in a cave the last couple decades already knows.
One of the great values of blogs is that they are personal, and that they share a human perspective. They can be anything, of course, and often are. This article is a fabulous example of the personal perspective as presented by a thoughtful person. Just the kind of article that makes a blog worth reading.
Excellent piece Dr. Pat. The radical elements that eclipsed the traditional Millesian liberal movement and stole its good name are indeed descended from the two branches of Hegelian historicism that have immiserated so much of the globe. It's interesting to note that Saul Alinsky (of the communist branch) was instrumental in instructing many of the charming SDSers who ravaged the liberals good name. JS Mill would not recognize what passes for a liberal today.
It is also interesting to note that Hillary! was so taken by Alinsky's notions while attending Wellesley that she wrote her senior thesis on him. Of course, that thesis has been carefully shielded from our view so it cannot be said that she was infatuated with his ideas, unless her doing a summer internship with Robert Truehaft (noted Berkeley Alinsky supporter) might be indicative.
The core history of the long rape of the liberal movement is to be found in the years between '66 and '73. Feminism was actually a very early casualty. By the mid '70's it was completely infested with pseudo marxists and has never recovered from the infestation.
At any rate, great post!
Beautiful. Just... beautiful. Wow. As a former Democrat (now a Libertarian) I had felt for a long time that the Left in general had decayed into the kind of moral and intellectual bankruptcy that you described. It took me years to reach this point, from many information sources.
Your last statement really hit home. Beautiful.
I traveled a similar path from democrat to conservative.
What started me was the abandonment of Viet Nam and the terrible consequences of that betrayal.
The next big push came from the idiocy of the nuclear freeze movement. I wonder if Cindy Sheehan was part of that fiasco.
It took me another ten years to change my mind, but I do not regret it one bit.
Bravo!
This comment will be relatively short. I'm glad that someone pointed this out about 'today's Left/liberals.' I am far more idealistic than many of those I know and I normally vote republican. In all honesty, though, my views usually match up more closely with those of a Libertarian.
ummmm... do some more reasarch on the ideals of the left before doing that again...
this seems like an opinionated, uninformed, rant by a right-winger that has only a small biased view of the left
please! leftists do not support dictatorships, people think that because of marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is actually a kind of like a premature direct democracy, as apposed to the "dictatorship of the bougeois"(sp?) which is caused by all the corporate oppression and vote buying caused by a liberal-capitalist system, not to mention the corruption caused by the extreme-right, anarcho-capitalism (see somalia as evidence of this[note: not somaliland]).
"There is no longer a commitment to personal liberty or to freedom. The Left is far too busy to promote freedom for the common man or woman" -> this is a contradiction
"because their time is taken up advocating freedom for tyrants who oppress the common man; terrorists who kill the common man" -> no, the far right does that! the left (especially the far left) takes away peoples power to opress the 'common man' and gives 'personal liberty' to everyone
"After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?" -> give me some evidence of TRUE leftism associated with this! when was this fact associated with the left?
"The intellectuals who once promoted the IDEA of freedom, now are ensnared in an IDEOLOGY that depends for its very existence on the silencing of speech; the suppression of ideas; and the persecution of those who dare to refute its tenets." -> not true again. not only is IDEOLOGY fundamentally connected with IDEA, but true communism (extreme left) supports direct democracy, which is the oposite of the sicencing of speech. the only speech that we leftists seek to silence are mistruths and 'facts' that are either contradictory or have no truth in them whatsoever!
"They and they alone know the truth, and if you argue with them you are immediately labeled as a “racist”, or a “sexist”; or identified as “hurting poor people”, “hating blacks”, or “against women”. Every argument is defined in these terms. If they are the champions of “X”, then anyone who disagrees with them must hate/discriminate against “X.”" -> again, give me some examples.
"Perhaps--just perhaps-- it is the Left's own policies that “hate” and discriminate against black people? Perhaps it is their victimization..." -> if you actually knew something about leftism, you would know that race has nothing to do with it. the political scale is to do with exactly that, politics and economics! not racism!! i hope that was the last time i had to type that tonight!
"...Or that there are possibly more effective and less damaging approaches that the same old Marxist formulations." -> have right-wingers ever taken some of their own advice, they could use it! especially you!
"that the levees in New Orleans were deliberately blown up. Or that the Iraq war is being fought to benefit the oil companies." -> ok, now your just pulling shit out of your arse! these conspiracy theories are thought of by a myriad of people, from all socio-economic backgrounds, and from the left AND RIGHT!!!
i also would like to point out that you do not provide a single bit of definite, unrefutabe evidence, you just rant about your own misconceptions
and if you want evidence for my points about leftist ideals, i am all the evidence you need. i am an evolutionary anarcho-communist, the extreme-left, and i firmly stand against your description of the ideals of the left! i support freedom for the masses, individual liberty, multiculturalism, direct democracy, and communism. and most importantly, i oppose oppression of any kind, weather racial, political, economic, or otherwise.
i re-state. this blog seemed like a biased, uninformed, right-wing, rant with no factual value
thanks
-nath
i forgot to point out that my last comment (just before this one) was a protest that dr. sanity was misrepresenting leftist ideals.
i made no claim that leftist ideals were the right ones (though it may have seemed that way)
I didnt read thru all the comments, so I dont know if somebody else made this point. Feminism was utterly successful, much like the March of Dimes when polio was for the most part eliminated. But the March of Dimes still exists, and I am not sure why. The same holds true for feminism. If I remember correctly, one of Senator Kennedy's objections to John Roberts' nomination to the supreme court was that Roberts was not sufficiently against the barriers that young women face being admitted to college. My understanding is that more women are in college than men, by margin of about 53% to 47%, so WTF?. I am glad that my daughter will have more opportunities than girls did in the past, but I don't really think that "the Man is keeping her Down" anymore.
I came to read some of this right wingnut ranting, but there's a panel down the left side of the page that won't allow me to see it all.
Probably just as well.
My wife has tuned me into your blog. I enjoy it very much. Keep up the good work. I’m afraid, however, I disagree with one of your statements.
“Today’s Left and its antiwar clone army are reduced to reliance on mere Marxist rhetoric and tired, worn-out slogans that are trotted out in every circumstance and situation.”
The far left (including most intellectuals) are grounded in postmodern philosophy not Marxism. Nietzsche wrote that the stranglehold that religion has on man and the horrors this has inflected on mankind must be broken. Heidegger wrote that for man to be what he is truly meant to be he must break out of the molds into which man has been encased. It is only through this breaking of the rules that “real” man (da-sein) may appear. He doesn’t say what this “real” man is only that the current values and norms keeps him oppressed and from expression. He goes further to say that any ideas of the ‘rights of men’ are invalid because the “true” nature of man must break the constraints (values and norms) keeping true man from appearing. Foucault claimed that the norms and values which oppress the oppressed are defined by those in power. Change the power elite and you change the world (for the better). Thus anything put forward by the powerful (ie USA) are oppressive. Then Derrida comes along to say that all ways (except the present) are good. Because our values and norms are historically based and therefore no better than what other societies have. There is no value-based assumptions because all are historically based and thus just as valid as another.
So what the Left sets out to do is to invalidate our norms and values which, even if you are an atheist, come from a Judeo-Christian background. Break that bond and you kill the source of our norms and values. The sanctity of the individual is at the heart of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The individual must be replaced by victim classes. Where Marx advocated for the economic victim, post-modern thinkers advocate not only for economic victims, but also for racial victims, gender victims, the ‘powerless’ victims. For post-modernists it is a moral crusade.
Rich
This sounds like what I've heard came from old Communists after their movement became just another tool of repression in the early Soviet years. You assume that these people you're addressing actually give a damn about those principles you yourself stood for once.
Dr. Sanity, Great post.
I was "liberal" too during the 70s. It felt great to support the oppressed then because they WERE oppressed by laws and policies. In fact, I admit I felt morally superior to people who did not support the movement.
I suggest that it is this need to feel morally superior to others that motivates most leftists (whether they realize it or not). This explains why they continue to support failures like government schools and obstruct school choice. Their need to feel good about creating "equal" outcomes trumps the traditional "liberal" ideal of maximizing personal freedom of choice.
Incoherently, liberals want to help "oppressed" poor children by forcing them into one academic solution. Of course, that force is never considered "oppressive" because it is born of a "noble" intention.
And this is where the most well meaning liberals fail (and most of the liberals I know ARE very well meanning). They cannot accept any solution that does not FIRST conform to their image of "fairness". Whether its universal health insurance, social security for retirement, government schools for children or even car inspections (despite the fact that miniscule numbers of cars ever fail) the answer has to be a collective answer, an "equal" answer, no matter how poorly it operates in reality.
For people obsessed with helping the "oppressed" this is strange because their "solutions" always involve MASS OPPRESSION.
One writer above says he's all for paying higher taxes for "social" good. So why doesn't he, and other liberals, pay more, voluntarily? They have confidence in government, fine. Support it. I have more confidence in private charities. Why can't I take that same money at the margin and direct it where I feel it is more effective? Why do you need to FORCE me, to OPPRESS me, in order to support YOUR preferred method of solving problems?
This is where liberals are completely blind and morally bankrupt. Their willingness to align with goverment to FORCE people to do "good" is corrupt, immoral and illiberal. Their arrogate this power because their moral superiority gives them license to ignore fact, logic and history and allows them to hold totally incoherent positions simultaneously (i.e. freedom of a parent to chose a child's school is impossible while freedom to chose whether to bear said same child is immutable).
Happily, blogs like this are (finally) begining to aggregate and refute the nonsense the left has spewed for ages.
Keep going Dr. Sanity. You are right on the money.
Unbelieveably ignorant. Ann Coulter with a DSMIV. Pity you wasted your education on this crap.
DocSan - Just found your little piece of Blogospheria today, and have to salute you. Insightful, unapologetic and honest stuff.
Today's Leftoids are mere posers, pretending to offer solutions that have been shown repeatedly and unmercifully by history to be failures. Liberalism has degenerated into a dying cult, placing the orthodoxy of good feelings and bland slogans ahead of the actuality of good results.
Keep writing.
You people are still whining about communism? Oh, for fuck's sake. Look, it's one thing to have a different opinion about some political thing or another and write your little blg about it, but when all you can do is dress up like ann coulter and gnash your teeth about how the jews and communists are trying to take over america, it's really quite embarassing, don't you think?
I know this tired claptrap is required regurgitation for you conservatives, but at some point don't you get tired of eating each others' vomit and purring at how deliciously insightful it is?
Let me know if you want me to spell it out for you. I'm always happy to enlighten you pathetic retards (er, "ideologically challenged," I mean of course). I can do it in words of one syllable, too, so you won't get a headache.
love,
your mom
In response to the nonsense above, I'd like to point out that if anyone's venting tirades against Jews, it's the despicable left. Go to Berkeley and you'll see, or rather smell, what I mean. The foul breath of anti-semitism in the name of defending the terrorists of Hamas. The Doc's right in saying the Left is defending terrorists.
Critical thought? Nah, the Left's happy to just be the opposite of the right. Which today means, insane.
Very interesting site. Am viewing it from across the pond in England. We have an intiguing situation here in that the darling of the left - Prime Minister Tony Blair - has got into bed with the American right and I think a few logic circuits are struggling. The sight of which has been quite entertaining. But there is a more serious side. One of the sad consequences has been that our armed forced are not well-supported financially by the government. The left has continued to cut its spend on the army - as it always did - but it is using the army the way the right always did. As my son is going in for officer training, the idea that he might be killed has to be accepted but that it might happen because he has to share a bullet-proof vest so that the left can be seen to not really support the army is another.
What does one do about the tyrants in this world? Africa has been destroyed not by colonialism but by its post colonial rulers. The middle east has been involved in 'smiting' itself and others for millenia. The American involvement in Vietnam in the Far East was part of a long history of war-fare in the region. War is nothing new for humanity. 'The lessons of history are that we learn nothing from history.'
Feminism. I don't quite agree that the feminist war has been won. My mother (a teacher) was a suffragette as a young woman. She always voted as she said she knew what is was like to be without a voice. My aunt trained as a doctor but was barred from attending certain lectures. I was able to take a job but was told I was a bad mother for not being at home with my children. My daughers are expected to have paid employment and, if they do not, government ministers talk about them having to repay the costs of their education and refer to them as being a burden on society. Same government pays out a fortune in child-care vouchers for nursery schools. It is a job if it is someone elses child but not if it is your own...and the cynic in me thinks that a recognised job only because money and so taxes are involved.
The struggle in the 60's when I was at University was for women to have some power - and that in a capitalist society is access to the means of production. We have shown we can hold down a job and be doctors, accountants etc. What we now need to do is to find someway of valuing what women actually do - but for which there is no method of payment. In the medical profession, there are now more female than male trainees in medical schools. The only valuable job was seen as being a doctor - the male preserve at that time. Nursing - the more female role - on the other hand was not valued. We now have medical techinicians but true nursing care no longer exists. And that was the healing part of medicine - the necessary complement to the science.
Not facing up to things - collective hysteria. I have long thought that mulitculturalism is just another cutesy word for apartheid. (Which, as you know, just means separate growth and yet was so obviously not a growing medium.) Religion in many ways makes a common goal for a diverse group but it needs everyone to buy into the same creed and one thing 9/11 did for me was to finally kill off any respect for any religion. It is just so much squabbling over whether to cut off the top of the egg or to bash it in. (Gullivers Travels). So the Islamic fundamentalists threaten to kill us all to demonstrate what a good thing their perverted verions of Islam is. The Christian nations - followers of a man who advocated peace and goodwill - thumps the living daylights out of them...and so it goes on. (Though in relation to the Danish cartoons of The Prophet - they threaten to murder us all and we draw silly pictures and laugh at them - you can see, in a way, why it would make them hopping mad!)
I have also thought that political correctness is also an avoidance mechanism. I was ticked off at work for 'flaunting my sexuality'. As a middle-aged dumpy-frumpy, I was a bit non-plussed. My crime was to have said,'My husband is picking me up from work.' Husband being a pejorative term and those not of my sexual orientation might be offended! I attended the wedding of some gay friends and thought it sad that there was no celebratory word for their situation. Partner is so business-like and is already in use with a particular meaning. Hysteria has also been called in for more duty than it can carry. Is it conversion disorder, is it childish, hysterical and attention seeking, is it running amok with strong emotion? Why not a separate word for each? And the modern family - this is my sister-in-law who is divorced from my brother-in-law could have a tighter definition. And these are her children - this one's father is my brother-in-law and these two are from previous marriage and so not really blood relation but part of the family. Huge mouthful. And why not celebrate the differences instead of the denial of it into just 'nieces'? The point being that if we had the language to express our differences and to celebrate them, then we might not get ourselves into such messes as human beings.
Once again, it's the Left, on the attack. And the attacks are always so personal - it's a good thing they don't know you better or they'd be searching through your closets, catting you out for your taste in shoes or something. Here's a story for you:
The Missoni family, whose eldest daughter Gina I went to highschool with (for those who insist on names for anything to be believable), were very close friends with the Rev. ML King, Jr. when the Civil Rights Movement was really starting to gather steam. They attended all of the speeches, rallies, demonstrations and marches. In later years, when Mr. M's job took him across the country (to my hometown), they still stayed in close contact with the King family, and their album of those days is truly something to behold. But after MLK's death, when Jesse Jackson started claiming himself MLK's spiritual successor, and the likes of Al Sharpton and his (Loony Left) ilk started "speaking up for the black community", suddenly the Missoni's found themselves on the outs with all of their former friends and associates from the old days. Oh, did I mention that he was white? Suddenly no more invites to commemorative events and memorials; even when the invites came from Coretta Scott King herself an assistant or some other factotum always followed up with a discreet phone call "uninviting" them, lest their presence prove inconvenient, troublesome, or awkward. Yet this was a man who had suffered and celebrated with Dr. King personally through every up and down of the Civil Rights Movement, not because it was the hip cause, but because he truly and passionately believed in the Equality of Man. Now, because of his colour (and yes, that's what they told him in the last, ending phone call) it's as if he never existed to them.
With these Civil Rights that Dr. King and thousands of others fought so hard to win, men like Louis Farrakhan give speeches at colleges and universities around the country spreading hatred and bile, calling for black separatism and advocating violence against against Jews and caucasians, as do many media celebrities, cultural figures and "leaders" within the black community (which isn't even necessarily all Democratic or Lefty). All around college campuses you can attend demonstrations calling for separatism of this or that group from society (just use Google and your mouse, you lazy lefty buggers). You can move on to pretty much any Lefty group out there, and the rhetoric just gets worse.
As a conservative (or rather a classical libertarian) and a rational thinker (I hope), I work hard to try and see things from the other side (being from the "Left Coast" as some of my friends say, many of my oldest friends swing hard toward the "moonbat" element), but I honestly can't wrap my head around their view, because it's so one-sided, so dead-end. My brain runs amok thinking about all the other potential points of view. It's impossible to confine myself to just the Left's one, adamant, irrational view, whose root seems to be "Bush is Evil/ Hitler/ Satan" and "Everything America does is Evil/Wrong".
I say "But what about rednecks like my dad, who will give the shirt off his back to help someone, anyone who needs it?" "Well, he's still evil because he supports the troops that Bush sent over there to kill Iraqi babies" or "What about the millions and millions of dollars in aid that we've sent down to Central/South America over the last 30 years?" "Everyone knows that the Republicans, just like Bush and Cheney, only used that money to fund right-wing hit-squads to torture and kill the peace-loving, freedom-loving farmers growing their organic (drug) farms up in the isolated hills")
Maybe we've all been deceived and all the (gazillions of) Lefties we've seen portrayed (after all they do get the coverage, don't they?) in the news, in papers, magazines, in video interviews, stared at (and probably mocked) at demonstrations, weren't the REAL Lefties, who really are just snuggly, kitty-loving, military-loving, war-hating, special equal rights for special people who really believe that equal distribution of wealth for all can achieve our utopia. Maybe they're not the myopic, self-centred, America-hating (actually, I don't think they necessarily hate America per se, but they definitely seem to hate Americans) passive-aggressive bullies we've all been taking them for. Maybe we've just been misled. But until I see evidence to the otherwise, I'll just reserve judgement.
Great. You go from Idea to ideology, where I would go from idea to institution. it happens to the best we pitiful little creatures produce. You have Christ? you create a formal intricate, and argumentative institution, self perpetuating. the womens's movement same old same old, perpetuated beyond it's need for existence. Soup kitchens and food banks have a life of their own too, they also have become institutionalized. People who use them today in the majority are people who just see free food that saves their dollars for more fun needs. Unions have also generally outlived their raison d'etre. Yet try to downsize their power in the work place? God Help us all.
Well said, Dr. Sanity. Wish I had written it.
I've noticed a trend among honest but angry conservatives to see a "Left" that I never see, sitting at this moment in a cafe in Berkeley:
It wasn’t long before the symbolism struck a responsive chord in the Left who joyfully and with great enthusiasm pointed out that the US “deserved” the attacks and that those who died were merely “little eichmanns”.
I think there may be a lot more range for libs and cons to agree... some of what we're facing is the tendency for the loudest, silliest voices (for any side) to get the most press. I've never heard the "little eichmanns" quote, and no one I know on the left (including many, many Berkeley radicals) would say the people in the towers "deserved" it, though I think I've heard of some old-Red crazies who might say something like that. But that's my point - conservatives seem to see a left composed mostly of people that would be incredibly unpopular in Berkeley, and I assume liberals are missing what conservatives really want to say.
Some of your points were interesting... I'm not of fan of conspiracy theories ["conspiracy as in aliens"... there's plenty of "conspiracy as in mafia"], but I've seen them growing among "the Left," and it's not healthy. I'm interested to see what happens if I mention to Lefties that it used to be conservatives who went for conspiracy theories, maybe your statement will help innoculate some of them.
- Stephen "yet another progressive who opposed Saddam when Reagan supported him"
SO MUCH TO COMMENT ON, SO LITTLE TIME
"The Left is far too busy to promote freedom for the common man or woman, because their time is taken up advocating freedom for tyrants who oppress the common man; terrorists who kill the common man; and religious fanatics who subjugate the common woman."
But that behavior isn't their goal, it is a merely a tool in pursuit of their goal.
As I see it, they are doing two things here (both of which I believe you have said, though in different words):
(1) supporting exactly the opposite on issues most important to their political opponents, even if that is in their own long term worst interest, and:
(2) trying their best to give the impression they do it not for political motives, but to uphold implicitly self-evident moral truths, while others weakly or maliciously trample them underfoot.
The fist part of this strategy is designed to establish a sharp contrast between themselves and those they wish to depose from power, and the second to foster the illusion, in the minds of as many as they can fool, that they are in the right. That makes it easier for the voter to distinguish between the candidates, while making their opponents appear less desirable, thereby stacking the odds in their favor.
It is a completely amoral approach because winning, not being productive, is the primary goal.
I don't even think they all may be consciously doing it, though I suspect that at least the worst of them are.
Sure, that's a bit simplistic, but it's a recurring pattern. And looking at it that way can explain why, right after the 2004 election, they made such a fuss over how anyone could perceive the Right as 'owning' moral issues. I mean, what magic could the Right possible have that would give them such an edge, when the Left fought so hard for that turf? I suspect that's the source of their newfound high standards, at least for the other guys.
So, when Dr. Sanity says they are "Post Modern" and "moral relativists" I can't disagree. To me, it's as clear as day.
Now, in case some 'concrete thinker' will whine, 'but Republicans do that, too'; to them I can only say that if they can't distinguish between someone who is totally faking a moral agenda from someone who is largely sincere, it is probably because their own moral relativism prevents them from understanding any explanation those on the Right can give.
Nevertheless, let me try. Here is an example of profound corruption on many levels.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/di...y/?
id=110009591
If you can't see it, or think it is unimportant, you may be beyond help
THROUGH ROSE COLORED GLASSES?
"Patriotism and love of one's country is mocked by those who once fought to bring the American Dream to all American citizens;..." -- Dr.S.
Maybe you were more fortunate than I, because the Left that I knew was pretty much the same then as it is today. I, for one, was just a lot less discerning of their motives, even though I had my suspicions. Just consider how warmly the they embraced 'Jon Carry' and his lies back then.
Those who mock patriotism now, mocked it then. Those who were sincere either awoke or were driven away, leaving behind a more concentrated rancid essence that is now much more readily identifiable as such.
They just had the wool pulled over the eyes of many an idealistic kid. The fact that so many who originally thought of themselves as Leftists have not abandoned their original ideals, only the expression of those ideals, strongly supports that contention. And, by "expression of those ideals" I mean to include the fact that they have found today's Right to be a far more conducive to that expression.
The parasites of today were the same then. They just had more hosts to hide behind. Why they are still fooling people today, though, is something I don't understand. Though it probably has to do with the fact that they have many fellow travelers in the MSM who keep scrutiny at bay.
Hi Guys! I'm sorry, but I want to present you BEST links(P.S. as for me) about Super Girl Naughty Nati Naughty-Nati
If You want to 'Weight Loss' go here: Florinef
Or if You want to meet smb.'s wishes(in love): Viagra Sample
Thank's!
799
So many of the ideologies (Islamism, feminism, Marxism, multiculturalism, moral relativism) today are so absurd and so stupid, I'm tempted to call them IDIOT-ologies. It seems so appropriate.
Dr. Sanity;
This is an excellent post, but I noticed that you've made numerous grammatical errors thoughout it. Please go back and clean up your essay. Every American should read this, so please make it more readable. Thanks.
To: Stephen (who opposed Saddam when Reagan supported him.) Your self-description is a nearly perfect example of Leftist Deconstructionism. By this, you charge that Reagan "supported" Saddam. Well, that would be one (perverse) way of describing the Reagan administration's approach to the old Tyrant of Bagdhad. Your use of the verb "support" is inapt, however. Reagan "supported" Saddam to the extent that Saddam was an effective check on the power of the (Islamic) revolutionary regime in Iran. Reagan supported Saddam about as much as Harry Truman "supported" Joe Stalin in the war against fascism. Truman did indeed continue FDR's policy of sending war materiel for use by the Red Army until Mr. A. Hitler died in a bunker in Berlin. Thereafter (1950),Truman issed NSC # 68, the document which initiated the greatest military and diplomatic effort in history for the very purpose of checking and containing the greatest tyranny ever visited upon guilty mankind in the form of our former ally, Mr. J. Stalin. I do admit, nevertheless, that Lefties like you have way with words. In short, nice try, but it won't fly.
Wow. I can't believe I just read that mess. I feel ever so slightly dumber for it, I could have spent the time starting a re-read of the Brothers Karamazov. The world is indeed wearier for your sad insights.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
