87

Donohue Continues to Beclown Himself

I especially enjoyed his attempted analogy of this situation with a woman who is beaten for twenty years and then blows her husband’s brain out.  Any of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless organization should demand every cent back.  Discrimination against Catholics and general anti-Catholic bigotry are serious issues and Donohue, in exchange for a burst of publicity, has made certain that no one is ever going to take him seriously again.  Time for Donohue to find another means to earn his daily bread.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  • 3
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

87 Comments

  1. I would not care to read this magazine, but Donahue is way off base here. Islam demands the death of anyone who dares criticize it. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not just an attack on that magazine, it’s an attempt to intimidate the rest of us into frightened sheep. Hebdo was chosen because of it’s prominence, but an outspoken person or institution that was also down on Islam could have been chosen as the target for tonight as well. Donahue is incredibly short sighted not to realize that.

  2. . A woman abused for 20 years is in a addictive prison of sorts hence she has overstayed and not fled. The murderers in question had to hunt for this small newspaper in order to find abuse that didn’t exist in their lives …so that they could kill so that they could be martyred which is what they are asking of the swat team over night in France. They seek 72 “dark eyed houri”…they are fundy not sufis who take the houri metaphorically…. but the world and Donohue gives them more credit than that…ie that they are seeking Allah like sufis and are thus really offended. No…they are fundamentalists….you can’t seek God and 72 houri simultaneously. Fundamentalist Islam is a blasphemous concept of heaven for the males of Islam. It is carnality to the nth degree replacing the encounter with God. They hunted for the abuse so that it would lead them to a carnal paradise. I’ve never looked at one odd newspaper in my life and I once worked in Manhattan with its many news stands. They hunted in order to be offended….so that they could be killed by police so that they finally be rich and carnal in paradise. It has zero to do with reaching the real God.

  3. Anyone of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless organization should demand every cent back.

    The organization antedated Dr. Donohue. They put out a satisfactory newsletter and some useful research reports. He’s just making a bad argument here. (And his conception of ‘anti-Catholicism’ is somewhat muddled). A better argument would be that vulgarians, like the rest of us, should get to die in bed.

    The ‘free speech’ argument is problematic for reasons stated by Robert Bork a generation ago: the utility of free speech is something which derives from a public order characterized by deliberative processes, which is not the object of nude dancing at the Kitty Kat Lounge (or displays of arrested development or sexual perversion). In a healthy culture, there would not be much supply or demand for a publication like Charlie Hebdo, and what their would be would be constrained in its distribution by citations issued to news vendors by inspectors enforcing municipal ordinances against the trade in obscene literature, and so confined to adult book stores and mail delivery in plain brown wrappers. (Of course that refers to an older generation of technology).

  4. Art Deco

    Charlie Hebdo is (was) for the most part a satirical magazine that, over the last 40 years has uncovered quite a number of real scandals. Its targets have been, for the most part, politicians, judges, bankers, financiers and civil servants. It is bawdy and scatalogical, rather than obscene.

    It was one of the few publications in France that was prepared tp publish the Danish cartoonsof the “Prophet” and, in response to the reaction, started producing its own. It decried the hypocrasy of the rest of the Left-Wing press that gleefully produced rather dated anti-clerical attacks on what CH called a “moribund superstition,” whilst refusing to say a word against Islam, for fear of offending murderers for that is precisely what the rest of the press were afraid of.

    CH knew the risks but, as Stephane Carbonnier said, “It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.”

  5. Sorry, misprint – I meant Stephane Charbonnier. The quotation is from an interview with La Monde in 2012, « Ça fait sûrement un peu pompeux, mais je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux. »

  6. I especially enjoyed his attempted analogy of this situation with a woman who is beaten for twenty years and then blows her husband’s brain out.
    I understood the analogy. It’s proper to focus on the crime of murder and carry it to its legal end, but don’t forget to discuss the issue of domestic violence.
    .
    I think the confusion or divide between Megyn, Donald, et al is one side is arguing from legal ground and Donohue is arguing from moral ground. They take Donohue’s moral arguments, which are in agreement with many examination of conscience lists I’ve read, and extending them to legal conclusions, which is the wrong thing to do.
    .
    The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not just an attack on that magazine, it’s an attempt to intimidate the rest of us into frightened sheep.
    I didn’t hear anything to lead me to believe Donohue believes otherwise. He did call them “murders” and “Muslim barbarians.” He has spoken before about Islam influenced terrorism, but he is taking advantage of a window of opportunity to discuss hostility towards religion.
    .
    The murderers in question had to hunt for this small newspaper in order to find abuse that didn’t exist in their lives.
    If you narrow in on this single event, you’re missing the big picture Donohue is explaining, the hostility between religion and religion foes, which often appear in media.
    .
    In a healthy culture, there would not be much supply or demand for a publication like Charlie Hebdo, and what their would be would be constrained in its distribution by citations issued to news vendors by inspectors enforcing municipal ordinances against the trade in obscene literature, and so confined to adult book stores and mail delivery in plain brown wrappers.
    From what I hear, this is what Donohue wants to discuss, what makes a healthy culture. For this issue, he offers a remedy of “self censorship.” Bork goes a little further than what Donohue is saying, but it makes sense. Donohue is right in saying freedom of speech is not the end, but the means. For if it was the end, then anything goes.

  7. I generally agree with Art and Kyle.
    That said, Don is right that Donohue’s analagy is offensive. The relationship between a 20-year episode of abuse and the murder of the abuser by his victim is not comparable to the relationship between that of a gratuitously nasty and mean-spirited critic and the murder of the critic by his target. The former relationship involves a sensible and fair inquiry into the question of excuse or mitigation; the latter does not.

  8. “Any one of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless
    organization should demand every cent back.”

    According to Charity Navigator, for the fiscal year ending in 2012, Mr. Donohue’s
    compensation was $407,000. That’s a lot of dimes.

  9. Clinton,
    I think that’s 7 or 8 dollars more than Obama but Obama has bodyguards …albeit somewhat laid back ones.

  10. Any one of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless organization should demand every cent back.

    On Donohue, from Ace:

    There is a kind of stupidity that does not exist naturally in the wild, which does not arise spontaneously in men’s brains, but which springs up only when people’s income levels depend on such stupidity.

    You see this sort of stupidity all over official Advocacy DC, especially at, say, ThinkProgress and Media Matters.

    Those people aren’t smart, but they’re not as stupid as they sound.
    They are saying those stupid things because they’re being paid to say them.

    Period.

    As for Donohue’s claim being a legal, not a moral one, well, I think Allahpundit is correct:

    Hewitt asks the correct question in response: What do you do when people defy that norm? How far are you willing to go to enforce it? Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate? His logic is conspicuously similar to the collectivist logic used by fans of “hate speech” laws, including his creepy reference to “abuse of freedom”: We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society, at which point it’s time to start carving out exceptions. It’s the “heckler’s veto” as social ideal. Provocative speech, which is hurtful to some slice of the public almost by definition, would have a tough time surviving in that moral ecosystem. In fact, years before jihadis decided to escalate the sanction, Charlie Hebdo was sued in French courts on grounds of “racism” for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. They did survive, but as the entire world now knows, Charlie Hebdo was unusually dogged in its willingness to take risks for satire. Hewitt’s rightly suspicious here that Donohue’s system of “moral” sanction for blasphemy would calcify into a system of legal sanction. And you know what? Given the polling, he’s right to be.

  11. I would also note that Donohue’s smug little dig at the end about other outlets not publishing the offending images is rather rich considering he was appearing on one of the media outlets that has been willing to and has shown the offending images. Perhaps he could have learned that fact from one of the imaginary Bishops he talked to (listen to the Hugh Hewitt clip in that Ace link to understand what I mean).

  12. As someone I know put it very well:

    “Sure, people can talk about whatever they want, but it’s just not true that time and place are irrelevant considerations. It’s a commonplace nowadays to dismiss people who want to “tell me what I ought to be talking about,” but people’s priorities really are often indicative of something important about their moral formation. In Donohue’s case, it’s that he is a fanatic according to Churchill’s definition–that is, he can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject, which for him is whether somebody’s religion should be insulted. “

  13. As for Donohue’s claim being a legal, not a moral one,
    Other way around.
    .
    Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate?
    I think Donohue wants heads cut off or public stonings. Why not assume the worst? It’s Donohue afterall!
    .
    His logic is conspicuously similar to the collectivist logic used by fans of “hate speech” laws
    Yes, because “self” censorship is completely the same as legislated speech and prosecution. What’s that quote about smart people saying stupid things?
    .
    We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society
    Wait… so Allahpundit IS for legislating free speech. That’s further than what Donohue says about the Charlie Hebdo situation. Of course, assumptions always trump facts.
    .
    “Hurting”… rather subjective. I think the legalists, e.g. Allahpundit, and the moralists will have different but overlapping definitions of what hurts.
    .
    Hewitt’s rightly suspicious here that Donohue’s system of “moral” sanction for blasphemy would calcify into a system of legal sanction.
    It’s not IF there is legal sanction. It’s WHAT is legally sanctioned. Legal sanctions are already here. We’re just debating what is sanction and how it’s administered.
    .
    Given the polling, he’s right to be.
    Oh. Well, the polls have spoken. Nothing more to be said I guess. Polls now have authority to insert words into people’s mouths.
    .
    I would also note that Donohue’s smug little dig at the end about other outlets not publishing the offending images is rather rich considering he was appearing on one of the media outlets that has been willing to and has shown the offending images.
    Two points:
    1) A challenge to someone claiming all speech is equal to demonstrate their beliefs is not smugness.
    2) He gave no approval of showing the images. He is on the show to express the opposite. Will Fox anchors represent his opinion if he does not appear?

  14. Rebuttal can come packaged in different ways. Labeling arguments as snark is no refutation. Addressing the points presented would be a good start.

  15. I’m afraid I don’t understand the clip. Were they debating the meaning of the First Amendment with regard to France? As for Donohue and his group, I’ve always stayed clear of him. I didn’t know the word “troll” when I first ran across him, but he always seems to be feeding the trolls and not doing much else.

  16. As for Donohue and his group, I’ve always stayed clear of him.
    I think that is how people are seeing his message. They are judging the personality before they judge what he is saying.
    .
    I only see or hear of Donohue every once in a while. I know he has an aggressive style. I try to separate style or personality, the messenger, from what’s been said, the message. In this case, I don’t really see anything earth shattering shocking.

  17. Kyle – It’s a lot easier to stomach aggressiveness when it’s effective. I’ve never gotten the impression that Donohue’s group has ever been successful. As for his message in this case, I don’t think any of the individual sentences are necessarily wrong, but it’s hard to imagine anything less effective, unless his intent was to boost secularism and Islamic fanaticism at the expense of Christianity.

  18. bill bannon: “They hunted in order to be offended….so that they could be killed by police so that they finally be rich and carnal in paradise. It has zero to do with reaching the real God.”
    .
    These comments are starting to finally bring wisdom. The wisdom is this: That the First Amendment (and our purpose on earth) is to find God. Our Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, is to be our servant in finding God. The freedom to worship God, to speak to God, to write about God and to peaceably assemble for God and not be prohibited from the free exercise thereof.
    .
    It pained me to hear Megan Kelly deliver that Larry Flint decision since the court has abandoned the true reason for its being, to fulfill the Constitution. Larry Flint was shot and crippled. He wears the American Flag as a diaper. He attended court altogether naked except for his diaper, our American Flag. The American Flag is a symbol for our purity, white, courage, red, and truth, blue. The American Flag is our symbol in joint and common tenancy for all people for all time, “We, the people” now and our constitutional “posterity”…those future generations still to be conceived.. Larry Flint is a despicable traitor to every American citizen, stealing and defacing our Flag and contemptibly using our freedom to violate us. and we think that we are brave and smart for letting him. Larry Flint ought to have been escorted out of court until he read the Constitution and developed some respect for the rest of us, one at a time. and this goes for those imbeciles burning the American Flag…get a life.
    .
    And George Washington patted Larry Flint on the head and said, nice boy. Go rest in peace on Mount Suribachi.
    .
    So the Supreme Court called atheism a religion. Atheism is unconstitutional. Pornography is free speech. Ponography is a lie about human sexuality and perjury in a court of law. Babies are “blobs of tissue” without human souls with free will and intellect. Imposing atheism as a religion is unconstitutional. Inflicting ignorance, perjury and vice is unconscionable. Every aborted person has a lawsuit. Every raped person has a lawsuit and every citizen has a lawsuit against the Court for demeaning the human person and inviting crime.
    .
    Courageous? the Eiffel Tower? “Who am I to judge?” William Donohue “explains it all”
    and bill bannon you brought clarity to the conversation.

  19. It’s a lot easier to stomach aggressiveness when it’s effective.
    Maybe. I don’t think he was aggressive in that video, especially when compared to what is usually on Fox News. He was quick paced because he knew the segment would not be long.
    .
    but it’s hard to imagine anything less effective, unless his intent was to boost secularism and Islamic fanaticism at the expense of Christianity.
    Saying we should show prudence or discretion when exercising the right of free speech so as to be more tolerant of one another, especially toward religions, won’t go down well with everyone.
    .
    PZ, You first. Done. Point by point… Father Z style. 🙂

  20. Kyle Miller: “We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society ”
    .
    The newly conceived, legally and morally innocent virgin, the sovereign person in the womb from the very first moment of conception (Oh, if we could only respect our innocence and virginity and maintain these virtues!) who is the standard for Justice and morality for the State, our constitutional posterity, does have a claim on the defense of virtue and decency. Pornography at eye level, viewed, has a negative impact on the individual, especially the mother carrying our posterity. (but we do not have to care about her or our posterity because we are the great society, the progressives, the illuminati, the enlightened ones.sarc.)on the funeral pyre more sarc.

  21. I’ve never gotten the impression that Donohue’s group has ever been successful.

    As much as he’s beclowned himself with this episode, I have long struggled with whether his role is necessary or helpful, and despite what Ace, there may be some value in that guy who is willing to be aggressive and kind of straddle that line between being a strong defender of the faith, and well, a blowhard. Unfortunately it seems of late that he’s been too much the latter, and I’m not just referring to this incident.

  22. CH knew the risks but, as Stephane Carbonnier said, “It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.”

    While plagiarizing La Pasionaria to boot.

  23. What do you do when people defy that norm? How far are you willing to go to enforce it? Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate?

    See Sandra Miesel’s explanation for the demise of the Index: the Holy See did not have the manpower to maintain it given the avalanche of published material issued each year. What you got was a fairly haphazard collection of items, and embarrassing for being haphazard. Technological innovation has effectively killed much that might have been done to create legal buttresses for the culture. To the extent that it has not, it has made the performance of such tasks a function of the central government, which is a cure worse than the disease. ‘Community standards’ should mean those of an actual physical place with people who interact face-to-face. The best you can do nowadays is statutes on indecent exposure, statutes on disorderly conduct, statutes on harassment, statutes on prostitution, statutes on public lewdness, and local ordinances which enjoin stage performances, cinema, and the commercial traffic in old technology and sexual implements. Because such ordinances are a legal buttress to a cultural expectation (that certain aspects of domestic life stay domestic), they are distinct from ‘hate speech’ laws, which apply to public speaking and published material on social relations which make use of terminology or arguments of which the arts-and-sciences faculty disapproves.

  24. While we’re on the subject of free speech, it has been the contention of the sort of people who produce verbiage and images for a living that they should have plenary discretion to do so, a franchise which does not apply to ordinary commercial enterprises (who are regulated up the wazoo about their hiring practices, compensation, and the dimensions of their custom). Some of the liberty posturing is annoying.

  25. “While plagiarizing La Pasionaria to boot.”

    François-Noël Gracchus Babeuf I think said it first, although I have no idea of the source of his statement. It is often erroneously attributed to Zapata who said something similar.

  26. It’s gotten to the point where Bill Donohue has become nearly as insufferable as Phil Donahue (the former talk show host). A debate/brawl between them would be almost as entertaining as pitting Dan Savage against Michael Savage… 🙂

  27. “We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society, at which point it’s time to start carving out exceptions.”
    Which is what we do, leading some jurists to argue that “freedom of speech” is not a substantive right, but an application of the principle nulla pœna sine lege – no punishment without a law.
    Obvious exceptions to the supposed right would include falsehood, fraud and wilful imposition, breach of a contractual or fiduciary duty of confidence, breach of the Official Secrets Act, infringement of copyright, injurious falsehood producing patrimonial loss, incitement or conspiracy to commit a crime, certain threats, publications likely to prejudice a fair trial that is pending and so on. It would be difficult to reduce them all to a single principle.

  28. I think Art that the solution would be more liberty not less.
    And have more posturing? (Ex: narcotics legalization and marriage redefinition proponents.) And no liberty can be taken to excess of course because… liberty. I read your comment just before reading about the U.S. government possibly overthrowing the will of the people again for the sake of more liberty, the redefinition of marriage. Before that, I read about Justice Kagan’s struggle with the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association where extremely violent video games cannot be regulated by the local & state governments because… free speech. Rape women for points! (The case helps solidify my opinion of Justice Thomas as the greatest legal mind and justice on the bench in decades.)
    .
    Liberty is a gift from God, a means to an end. It’s not a license for anything goes. Use responsibly.

  29. “Liberty is a gift from God, a means to an end.”

    Liberty is a gift from God, and it is a gift that is increasingly under attack from the State, I fear the State far more than I do purveyors of ideas that I disagree with or images that disgust or enrage me. If Donohue wasn’t such a publicity seeking idiot he might wonder where the prime threat to Catholicism comes from: private groups like those who published Charlie Hebold or Caesar. The right to not be offended is tailor made for would be tyrants, and they are taking firm advantage of it.

  30. Liberty is a gift from God, and it is a gift that is increasingly under attack from the State
    This has been a popular story strengthened by baby boomers coming from the 60s, where “The Man” is around every corner. There is legitimate concern, but the concern is to the neglect of being wary of a government used to dissolve legitimate and reasonable traditions, standards and laws. Now we have people creating “rights” out of thin air, the will of people ignored and law makers and chief executives choosing what laws to enforce or defend in court. Why? Liberty.
    .
    At what point, if any, does liberty become an idol? At what point, if any, does the disagreeable become destructive?
    .
    If Donohue wasn’t such a publicity seeking idiot he might wonder where the prime threat to Catholicism comes from: private groups like those who published Charlie Hebold or Caesar. The right to not be offended…
    His organization has taken on both. For Donohue, this is larger than merely being offended.
    .
    What happens when those innocent private groups use their influence to manipulate Caesar or his courts against the people? No man is an island. No private group is an island. Nothing operates in a vacuum.

  31. “This has been a popular story strengthened by baby boomers coming from the 60s, where “The Man” is around every corner.”
    Rubbish. It is the truth in that the State now reaches into areas of life in ways that tyrants of the past could only have dreamed of.
    “Now we have people creating “rights” out of thin air”
    Freedom of speech and of the press are not rights created out of “thin air”, but rather basic human freedoms with very long pedigrees.

    “chief executives choosing what laws to enforce or defend in court. Why? Liberty.”
    Hardly, but rather the desire of the people to have a benevolent Nanny looking over them, which leads to the election of people like Obama. Donohue’s alleged right not to be offended plays into this perfectly.

    “For Donohue, this is larger than merely being offended.”
    Yep. 400K per annum larger.

  32. “Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate? I think Donohue wants heads cut off or public stonings. Why not assume the worst? It’s Donohue afterall!”
    .
    Thomas More said of blasphemy: “If he offends God, then let God arrest him” Separation of Church and state.
    .
    I corresponded with Father Virgil Blum, founder of The Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights before Dr. Donohue. The Catholic League was formed on the same principle as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, and takes the same approach. Somebody must stand up for Religious Freedom in America and Dr. Donohue does, not always palatable and not always successful, but then there is Corpus Christi, the play about Jesus sodomizing His Apostles and the multitude of disgusting things said about Catholicism that if left without challenge, you and I, as Catholics would be dead meat in the street. Did you know that the Know Nothings (rightfully named ) tried to drown Catholics?

  33. Rubbish. It is the truth in that the State now reaches into areas of life in ways that tyrants of the past could only have dreamed of.
    Let me restate. The idea of a tyrannical government has been around for millennia and was reinforced during the 60s by “The Man.” As you apparently missed, it’s a legitimate concern. For many years, we have been focused on what the right hand is doing while ignoring the left hand, which is undermining the country by dissolving what works. This can’t be more clear than under the Obama administration. You can create a long list of fundamental transformations rationalized on liberty arguments. Before the knee jerks, this does not mean Obama is a big pro-liberty president. It means he’s undermining the nation under the guise of liberty. And if one buys into liberty being license to do anything, most of Obama’s decisions appear legit.
    .
    Freedom of speech and of the press are not rights created out of “thin air”, but rather basic human freedoms with very long pedigrees.
    Think big picture. This is about more than freedom of speech.
    .
    Hardly, but rather the desire of the people to have a benevolent Nanny looking over them, which leads to the election of people like Obama.
    I have often experienced the Protestant failing to understand Catholic teaching because they take Scripture and interpret it one way. Nothing wrong with their interpretation. But, they do not realize their interpretation and the Church’s can both be true. The truth of one does not refute the other.
    .
    Just because the people have elected a benevolent Nanny or a soft tyranny, as Mark Levin says, does not mean the tyrant can’t be used to undermine the social mores in order increase its power. One way to do this is by the dissolving I mentioned earlier.
    .
    Yep. 400K per annum larger.
    This Charlie Hebdo/Donohue affair shows why conservatives and the religious right lose battles in the culture war. We eat our own. Rather than focusing on the arguments, we focus on how someone sounds, looks and even how much they make. This is typically the behavior of the left, those who fail to substantively address what is being said and resort to personal attacks.
    .
    Donohue saw a window of opportunity and took it. He didn’t invent this. Social commentators and policy wonks have done this time and time again. He wants to examine the conditions which led to the unjustified killing. Oh, what a scandal!
    .
    Look how the left handles when there is a shooting. The talking heads begin talking about gun control. They open the conversation about what contributes to a shooting and push policy makers for changes. (Donohue did not go as far as calling for state action as some initially believed.) They’re usually wrong, but nonetheless talking without barely a critique about talking. Criticism about their arguments? Sure, but not talking. Does the left eat their own or let them advance the ball? Even if a Democrat disagrees, he’ll keep quiet unless it’s something really egregious. What’s so egregious about Donohue asking the equivalent of loving thy neighbor through self control? Oh, his paycheck. [eye roll]

  34. (Ex: narcotics legalization and marriage redefinition proponents.)

    The advocates of homosexual pseudogamy are confused or pulling your leg if they fancy they;re advocating liberty. The issuance of a marriage license recognizes a status and confers obligations. They’re no more free to conduct parody wedding ceremonies than they were before. What they have a franchise to do is demand recognition from state agents and some private parties, which may be about their freedom to be an obnoxious nuisance, but there’s no benefit to anyone else. The mentality is the standard one for practitioners of identity politics.

  35. If Donohue wasn’t such a publicity seeking idiot he might wonder where the prime threat to Catholicism comes from: private groups like those who published Charlie Hebold or Caesar.

    State agents are your problem only when they’re doing the bidding of a social nexus which wishes to abuse you. In this country, that’s not the sort who write for Charlie Hebdo, who tend in our time in place to be juvie libertarians. It’s also not police officers or DMV clerks. It’s the educational apparat, the social work apparat, and large slices of the legal profession and the press corps.

  36. Hardly, but rather the desire of the people to have a benevolent Nanny looking over them, which leads to the election of people like Obama.

    I don’t think Social Security recipients have registered abnormal levels of support for the Democratic Party in recent years and BO’s level of support is most pronounced among sectors of the population defined by communal distinctions, marriage, and points in the life-cycle. Young people generally do not qualify for much in the way of public subventions bar the double-edged sword of student loans. There is TANF, of course, but the TANF clientele I believe amounts to 5 million people in toto (and I’d wager a three digit sum consists largely of non-voters).

  37. Kyle Miller: “Before the knee jerks, this does not mean Obama is a big pro-liberty president. It means he’s undermining the nation under the guise of liberty. And if one buys into liberty being license to do anything, most of Obama’s decisions appear legit.”

    Here are some people who agree with you:
    Peter Kreeft Ph.D. (age 78) Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, Angels and Demons, The Existence of God, author of 78 books. Socrates meets Jesus. Peter Kreeft’s voice is like mother’s lullaby.
    Ryan Timothy Anderson MA, Ph.D. (age 31) Heritage Foundation, Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse, (Elizabeth) Anscombe Society at Stanford University, author of What is Marriage with Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of Princeton University.
    Ben Shapiro (age 30) Breitbart News, Truth Revolt, Young People of America, Radio host, Islam, author of Bullies, defender of the Second Amendment.
    Ben Shapiro has a lawsuit against Obama.
    The young people have figured out this Obama and refuse to be bullied.

  38. Good Points All Around. Something not mentioned, the inability to understand the Islamic Jihadist mentality on the part of a secularized generation in the West. Albeit, the radical Islamic take on religion is nutty but the Obama types seem to have no idea. They are bereft of history and understanding. Obama himself seems blinded by an attachment to a Marxist worldview that should be buried in the very dust of the history he doesn’t understand.

  39. Pinky- on “feeding the trolls”– my grandmother called it “instigating.”
    *******
    The problem with the “battered wife shooting her husband” thing is that it falsely models the situation. A closer setup would be that reservation kid in North Washington that shot several people, including his cousin and the girl he liked. Supposedly the girl he liked and his cousin did do some real jerk things– that does not justify, excuse, cause or do anything more than indicate what his reasoning might have been, ie, “I feel bad so I am going to KILL PEOPLE.”
    A more accurate version would be someone who goes to the “Coffee and Insults Cafe” every day for his coffee not liking the insults, coming back and shooting the folks who run it.
    Don’t like the insults? Don’t go there. I don’t care if you really like the coffee, if you can’t take the insults that come with it, leave, don’t kill people.

  40. Obama himself seems blinded by an attachment to a Marxist worldview

    I doubt Obama knows Marxism from marmalade, or has any thoughts which would be unconventional outside a certain circle. Hold a series of cocktail parties and invite faculty and administrators from various schools around Chicago, apparatchiks of the Joyce Foundation and like organizations, psychotherapists, mainline protestant clergy, lawyers not engaged in common-and-garden solo and small partnership practice or working as public prosecutors, and journalists not working the sports page. You might leaven it with a scatter of school administrators or social workers. Listen to their table talk. That’s him.

  41. Concerning – faculty, administrators, apparatchiks of the Joyce Foundation and the like, psychotherapists, mainline protestant clergy, lawyers of a certain ilk, most journalists, school administrators or social workers – one might be tempted to say, Marxists all. But I see your point. Most are probably just climbing the moneyed mountain of politically correct garbage to success. Power and money go together like the horse and carriage. But Obama is said to have had a doctrinaire Marxist mentor in the card-carrying Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Communism is a misnomer anyway. The Soviets were simply socialists of a criminal variety. Forgive me, I ramble and delving into the taxonomy of it all is fruitless. It changes like the flu virus.

  42. Frank Marshall Davis was a buddy of Stanley Dunham, their avocational activities including toking and playing checkers. He was an elderly divorce with five children of his own and it’s a reasonable wager he had after nearly 30 years residence in Honolulu long since gone native. I would not read too much into his presence.

    I think you’d have to scrounge to find many Marxists in contemporary academe, and the one’s you find will be literary critics or congealing in the theoretical wing of sociology (though there’s a little rat’s nest in what’s left of academic geography as well). The one Marxisant character I knew the last place I worked was an agreeable and someone diffident man not too interested in the fads which sweep over academic institutions. He was a student of Marxism and an admirer of Keynes. Never heard one word out of him suggesting he had any investment in the race-class-gender yap which is the Official Idea most places.

    I’ll wager you also that the attitudes you refer to are among academics like the clothes you wear, status and identity markers. I never saw much evidence in their table talk that they deliberated on the much (though the ones who did were ideologues). They may be anxious about giving voice to dissenting opinions, but careerism sustains such a nexus of ideas by inhibiting discussion; it does not generate those ideas or make them attractive. Also, the financial ambition of people working in the occupations named is demonstrably circumscribed bar perhaps attorneys. You do hear professors complain about their salaries, commonly comparing them to family members who are not professors. You want to earn like a lawyer, you have to practice law, generally a more uncertain and anxiety provoking way of earning a living than is working as a tenured professor.

  43. The only unqualified right is the right of the people to live under laws of their own making and magistrates of their own choosing.
    Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    Scalia J agrees with him. “The whole theory of democracy, my dear fellow, is that the majority rules, that is the whole theory of it. You protect minorities only because the majority determines that there are certain minorities or certain minority positions that deserve protection. Thus in the United States Constitution we have removed from the majoritarian system of democracy the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and a few other freedoms that are named in the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of that is that the people themselves, that is to say the majority, agree to the rights of the minority on those subjects — but not on other subjects.” He summarises his position, as follows, “The minority loses, except to the extent that the majority, in its document of government, has agreed to accord the minority rights.”

  44. On learning that the itinerary for today’s rassemblement is from the Place de la République to the Place de la Nation via the bd Voltaire, I did find myself wondering what the Father of French Satire’s riposte to Dr. Donohue might have been.

  45. Thank you Art Deco, for the update on whether Marx still lurks in academic groves. My working at Dartmouth was forty-three years ago and my impressions are becoming antique. Marxism was error as it flowed from Karl’s pen. Perhaps my analogy of an ever-changing virus infecting those on the left may redeem my lack of currency.

  46. Supreme Court Justice Scalia stands for “due process of law” for each and every person, the unborn as well as the born. The executed were denied “due process of law”. Their executioners were law unto themselves. This means that all persons were disenfranchised of their civil rights, stripped of their citizenship and made subject to their executioners.

  47. Marx is still there, even if Marxists aren’t. Marx is there. So’s Hegel, or at least Hegel according to Marx, along with Nietzsche, or rather Nietzsche according to Freud, Weber, Heidegger, etc.. And then there’s that Frankfurt School mishmash of Marx and Nietzsche.
    .
    It’s just nobody knows all that Continental angst is there anymore because it’s been processed, pasteurized, homogenized, amalgamated, fortified and essentialized, and then sugar coated so the medicine goes down.
    .
    Anyways, I think that’s what Allan Bloom was complaining about.
    .
    After he got done complaining about Mick Jagger.

  48. “It’s just nobody knows all that Continental angst is there anymore because it’s been processed, pasteurized, homogenized, amalgamated, fortified and essentialized, and then sugar coated so the medicine goes down.”
    Thank you Ernst, I sensed that even after all these years, the recipe for that witch’s brew has not changed all that much. “Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble.” We turn on the news and, “By the pricking of my thumbs,
    Something wicked this way comes.” ;-(

  49. Marx is still there, even if Marxists aren’t. Marx is there.

    No, Marx is not there. The affinities of the academy are readily recognizable, and have little to do with any Theory of Everything ginned up 150 years ago.

  50. A mutating virus even at the beginning when Marxists argued with other self-proclaimed Marxists as to what was acceptable and what could get you an icepick driven into your head. Today we have namby-pamby collectivists regulating us to death rather than robust Bolsheviks bristling with Mosin Nagants and Molotov Cocktails. Such violent thoughts! I think I’ll take a pill and lie down. 😉

  51. Art Deco: ‘”While we’re on the subject of free speech, it has been the contention of the sort of people who produce verbiage and images for a living that they should have plenary discretion to do so.”
    .
    “homosexual pseudogamy, parody wedding ceremonies obnoxious nuisance, practitioners of identity politics.”
    .
    Excellent. A language, words to defeat the lie. May I share?

  52. I fully expect we’ll see an upcoming TAC article titled “Pope Francis Continues to Beclown Himself.” http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html
    I also expect to see those criticizing Donohue for an analogy not fitting perfectly to point out how the minute details of the pope’s analogy don’t work. Donohue’s analogy was a better fit. The pope’s comments about free speech go much further than what Donohue said.

  53. I fully expect we’ll see an upcoming TAC article titled “Pope Francis Continues to Beclown Himself.”

    Alas there are only so many hours in the day.

  54. If Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were not scatological and trashy, Neither Donohue’s nor Pope Francis’ criticisms would be valid, and I should hope would be unspoken.

  55. Far too much Peronism in his ideological make up.

    Or perhaps international bien-pensant static. And now an encyclical on ‘climate change’. We get Albert Gore’s idees fixe, then maybe an encyclical on Mary Robinson’s, then on Desmond Tutu’s, then on Baroness Ashton’s…zzz.

  56. There’s nothing peculiarly Marxist about many of the misconceptions she discusses and she’s not discussing the signature features of what addles academics and journalists.

  57. More beclowning. Charlie Hebdo co-founder blames editor for the killings. http://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-founder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack-185458716.html
    .
    “I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk,” Roussel, who writes under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, continued. “That’s it. We think we are invulnerable. For years, decades even, it was a provocation, and then one day the provocation turns against us.
    Is he saying the editor shares some culpability? Tsk, tsk. Freedom of speech has no limit. Push it as far as you want. 😉

  58. Art-
    if that was a response to Sarah’s articles, it makes no sense. Marx is not less present at colleges by there being others who also follow his theory, and no offense to you but I trust Sarah’s explicit education in Marxism over your impression of what it really is.

  59. “I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk,” Especially in a country that denies its citizens their God-given human right to possess and carry means of self-defense. We see the Chief Rabbi of Paris pleading with the government to allow at least designated persons to carry firearms in defense of the Jews in France. For as they say, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. This is a world turned upside down.

  60. Marx is not less present at colleges by there being others who also follow his theory, and no offense to you but I trust Sarah’s explicit education in Marxism over your impression of what it really is.

    Marx is not animating the thought student affairs apparat at your local college, no matter what Sarah Hoyt got handed in a Portuguese high school (and her complaints are a kitchen sink). Their wretched policy and procedures manual is animating them. Their social ideology, to the extent they actually hold one, is one fixed on posited status hierarchies which owe little to notions of class conflict derived from modes of production (and the social work project of people like them ‘redressing’ ‘disparities).

  61. William P Walsh wrote, “a country that denies its citizens their God-given human right to possess and carry means of self-defense.”

    The French have long memories and recall les journées de juin 1848 and la semaine sanglante (21-28 June 1871) too well to allow the workers to arm.

  62. Interesting observation Michael, the Eldest Daughter of the Church has certainly a storied past. Marx and Lenin considered the rebellions in France to be inspirational and instructive. I think the French rebels obtained most of their weapons by stealing them from the armories of the National Guard. And not too worry, how do Sans-culottes carry concealed? 😉

  63. William P Walsh wrote, “I think the French rebels obtained most of their weapons by stealing them from the armories of the National Guard.”

    Which was promptly disbanded by Thiers in 1872, after the Commune’s defeat by the army and its functions transferred to the Reserve.

    More recently, there were real concerns in 1945 over whether the Maquis could be persuaded to lay down its arms and it took all the efforts of the Tri-Partite Provisional Government to persuade them to do so.

  64. The French have long memories

    I doubt any longer than anyone else’s. Inertia is the strongest vector influencing public policy. France actually is characterized by witless centralization. It’d be interesting to see a study of the prevalence of pressure groups apart from the political baronies which form derived from the country’s political parties.

  65. Art Deco wrote, “It’d be interesting to see a study of the prevalence of pressure groups…”

    They are very numerous. My Law Agent and his wife are active in the Consistoire Central that takes care of Jewish religious issues, the Fonds Social Juif Unifié, in charge of welfare and education and the CRIF, which represents French Jewry on a political level. There is a Jewish press, with periodicals such as L’Arche, four radio stations in Paris and many provincial ones, a Jewish TV channel and so on.

    Another example is the Confédération Paysanne or CP, which represents rural interests and which has beeen a thorn in the side of government since its foundation in 1987.

    The Grand Orient de France (GOdF) which represents French masonry is regularly consulted by government and by commissions of the National Assembly.

    There are a host of others.

  66. D.R.M- I have always agreed with you…. till now. i still love you and your history vinyettes”- – did you see Charlie’s cartoon of God the Father being sodomized by God the Son who is being had by God the Holy Ghost??- turned my stomach and made me wonder what the Just Anger of the Son of Man would do when the editor is in his particular judgement- you know, that loneliest of all situations…. being blown away by some mussi may seem like a good thing then…me thinks- one bad for you…. but i relish your posts and they are head and shoulders above anything else i see

  67. Thank you Paul for your kind comments. I have never called the French mag anything but vile, but to me that is not the point. Freedom is too precious for it to be circumscribed either by those who use it in vile ways or by jihadist murderers. As for disagreeing with me, sometimes I disagree with myself between morning and evening!

  68. This to me is the point. The victims from Charlie are just that — victims. Any suggestion that they had it coming is offensive beyond measure. Any suggestion that they are heroic martyrs to free expression is juvenile nonsense.

  69. Mike Petrik: “This to me is the point. The victims from Charlie are just that — victims. Any suggestion that they had it coming is offensive beyond measure. Any suggestion that they are heroic martyrs to free expression is juvenile nonsense.”

    .
    This is the explanation I will keep.

  70. It seems to me Charlie Hebdo demonstrated pretty conclusively that a certain element of the muslim population living among us is prepared to murder anyone whose worldview differs from their own. That’s got to be some kind of witness to the truth, doesn’t it?

  71. Ernst Schreiber wrote, “It seems to me Charlie Hebdo demonstrated pretty conclusively that a certain element of the muslim population living among us is prepared to murder anyone whose worldview differs from their own. That’s got to be some kind of witness to the truth, doesn’t it?”
    Especially as they were well aware of the risk; as Stephane Charbonnier said– « Ça fait sûrement un peu pompeux, mais je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux. » [This may seem a bit pompous, but I prefer to die on my feet than live on my knees]
    On recalls Sophie Scholl, “The real damage is done by those millions who want to ‘survive.’ The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves -— or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe? From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.”

  72. paul coffey: “D.R.M- I have always agreed with you…. till now. i still love you and your history vinyettes”- – did you see Charlie’s cartoon of God the Father being sodomized by God the Son who is being had by God the Holy Ghost??- turned my stomach and made me wonder what the Just Anger of the Son of Man would do when the editor is in his particular judgement- you know, that loneliest of all situations…. being blown away by some mussi may seem like a good thing then…me thinks- one bad for you…. but i relish your posts and they are head and shoulders above anything else i see”
    .
    Each person is divine. Adopted children by God and brothers of Christ. This is our very salvation. So, yes, when God is slandered, perjured against in the court of public opinion, God’s divinity impugned as paul coffey posts, every man is slandered, perjured against in the court of public opinion, God’s divinity to man is impugned. Justice cries out to heaven for vindication. Is there Justice on earth that can vindicate God and God’s divine gift to man, salvation in Christ? Those who impugn God’s divinity deserve none. They are persons who have violated themselves, like self-abuse. Can a man sodomize himself? For those who need an answer: NO.
    .
    Jesus Said: “The Father and I are one.” Only Jesus took on a human nature. God the Father and God the Holy Ghost are pure and Holy Spirits.
    .
    Charlie Hebdo is a liar. I am not Charlie Hebdo. I do not want to be Charlie Hebdo. I will not be Charlie Hebdo.
    .
    The violation of freedom and the murders give testimony against Islam. I do not want to be Muslim. I will not be Muslim.
    .
    Those who hold with man’s divinity as adopted children of God have started to decline the embrace of Islam.

  73. Obama ought to have gone to France to commiserate and be aggrieved with the French people for the horror that they have witnessed and must endure, even as Lafayette came to suffer with us in the cause of freedom.

Comments are closed.