The Clothes Have No Barack

Wednesday, July 13, AD 2011

Right you are Klavan on the Culture!  I think that future historians will find the Obama years puzzling in that a large segment of the American population spent them resolutely denying the obvious:  that electing as President a politician from Illinois with little experience, few leadership skills, a reactionary adherence to government as panacea, and a pronounced hostility to the private sector, has been an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

20 Responses to The Clothes Have No Barack

  • That’s the truth! But the lemmings are still drinking the purple koolade and ready for that stampede off the cliff.

  • “Eat your peas and suck it in.”

    IMO history will judge Obama the least experienced, least qualified, and least American POTUS.

    Each day Wrong Way Obama provides evidence that nothing can be accomplished by complaining, criticizing, lying, regulating, spending, taxing, tomfoolery, and eroding the people’s liberties and property.

    An American would have said, “Eat your peas and suck it up.” Or, “Man up.”

  • The one thing that continues to amaze me is that otherwise really smart people (such as certain unnamed pro-nuclear energy bloggers) who know more about science and engineering and technology than I ever will are still in love with Obama! Now most people with whom I work in the nuclear power industry are conservative and realize that Obama is an idiot. But those who blog are invariably liberal, progressive Democrats, and often atheist humanists to boot. I just don’t get it. How can people certainly a whole heck of a lot smarter than me be unable to see through the smoke and mirrors? These aren’t evil people. They do want the best for the country and they are basically decent human beings. But they are ever so wrong and ever so deluded. They buy into that fantasy hook, line and sinker that Andrew Klavan so eloquently describes.

    I just don’t understand it. The country is going down under with abortion, gay sex, contraception, pornography, corruption (ecclesial and political), etc. And people still look at Obama all starry-eyed and gushy-teared. It’s truly the spirit of anti-Christ (no, Obama isn’t the anti-Christ; he’s too stupid to be that; rather, this spirit that so infects people who really are not evil themselves is positively demonic).

  • Paul, you wonder why people who are smarter than you are soooo deceived when it comes to Obama? It’s ideology man. These folks have adopted a pre-concieved set of ideas that does all their thinking for them. They never tested their ideology in the real world, they just accepted it as religious dogma. To get a handle on this, read “Intellectual Morons” by Daniel Flynn, especially the first chapter. BTW, your fellow nuke workers may understand more about science, technology, and engineering than you do, but they know squat about human nature.

  • Obama is trying for the center and getting squeezed from both sides. The Leftists think he’s abandoned them; the right think he’s too far left. The middle is narrow so he has nowhere to go, trying to satisfy both ends. It’s a losing strategy as his base crumbles and the independents move right. But if the GOP puts up another weak sister then Obama could win by default. Too early at this point to count him out. A lot could and will happen before Nov 2012.

  • Center Schmenter . . . Senator Rubio: “Every aspect of life in America is worse since Obama took over.”

  • Joe;

    I am happy to be able to state that we agree on something – it is too early to count President Obama out. Who would have thought Bush I would loose when a year before he had a 90%+/- approval rating.

  • I am happy to be able to state that we agree on something

    uh-oh 😀

  • I knew it was over for Bush 41 when he reneged on the no new taxes pledge. The Gulf War victory raised him to the stratosphere temporarily but it did nothing to repair the deep damage that Bush did to himself by violating the pledge and gave Perot the opportunity he needed to make his run and deep six Bush.

  • Right now the problem for the Repubs is Romney is about the best thing they’ve got going and that ain’t saying much. The media’s marginalization of Bachmann is proving successful; Gingrich never got out of the box, TPaw and Paul are yawn-inducing so, back to my original point, Obama could squeak by again because of weak opposition. Doesn’t help that McConnell is all but waiving the white flag by proposing to give Obama the keys to the treasury.

  • No, no, T. Shaw– don’t look at results, look at what he says.

    Paul W Primavera- I don’t know about civilian nukes, but the Navy guys were very high on intelligence and low on sense, in general. (She says, knowing full well that she was mistaken for a Nuke more than once.) Strong tendency to ignore reality once they’d established, in their minds, what was going on. It’s such a strong stereotype that there’s even a webcomic that uses a version of it– Girl Genius has “sparks,” incredible geniuses (of the mad scientist type) that can warp reality.

  • Foxfier,

    I was both a Navy nuke and a commercial nuke. Served as RO on a 688 class sub back in the late 70s, early 80s. Worked in commercial nuke power ever since. So I am doubly damned with lack of common sense.

    🙂

    However, most of the actual people I work with (engineers, techs, etc.) in nuclear power are conservative and see through Obama’s idiocy. That was also true back on the sub in the early 80s. We were ecstatic that Reagan defeated idiot Carter. Everyone cheered!

    It’s the pro-nuke bloggers (not all, though) who are generally liberal progressive Democrats. It’s almost as though if one’s time is spent actually doing nuclear work, then one is conservative. But if one’s time is spent talking about doing nuclear work, then one is liberal. I doubt that rule holds fast everywhere, but in my industry that’s the way it seems to be a lot (NOT all) the time.

    And NEI – the Nuclear Energy Institute – goes out of its way to ingratiate itself with Obama because it is dependent on remaining in Obama’s good graces.

    Now I gotta go because “nukes ‘R us.”

  • I think Rassmussen:

    Generic Republican – 48

    Generic Obama – 43

    How can 43% be so stupid- public schools.

    Latest logic launch from the community-agitator-in-chief: “I will not allow half the Americans that pay no taxes to bear the burden of the Americans who don’t pay their ‘fair’ share of taxes, or sumpthin.”

  • ” The magic suit insn’t wearing any president.”

    Priceless 😆

  • Pretty pathetic that you so called “Christians” do not have any memory of the previous 8 years before the 2008 election. I guess it is pretty “Christian-like” to start 2 illegal wars, set the record for most executions, presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world, etc, etc, etc…

    It is pretty obvious you put money ahead of God. A true Christian would help out their bothers and sisters. Try and justify greed any which way your selfish mind may. Remember, all that we have belongs to Him. We were born naked and will die naked. May God save your soul!

  • Ah, another liberal!

    There is NO comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war Obama is waging on the unborn. There is no comparison between the wrongs of forced interrogation and the filth of homosexual sodomy that Obama supports.

    Period.

    I love George W. Bush all the more if only because that incenses the liberal left into an apolexy of anger.

    😀

  • Pathetic is the word that came to mind phil18 as I read your comment. Really, if you aspire to troll status at this blog we do have standards.

    Here is what is wrong with your comment:

    First: you do not attempt to defend Obama, but you merely give vent to your Bush Derangement Syndrome. That is truly weak after Obama has been in office for over half of his term.

    Second: your use of the phrase “so called “Christians”. Please, if you wish to attempt to insult us you will have to do far better than such unimaginative paint-by-number insults. We do not expect literary brilliance from our trolls, but we do expect them to make some effort. You aren’t even trying!

    Third: Your attack on Mammon is a non-sequitur in regard to this post unless you are arguing that it is a good thing that Obama’s policies are reducing the economy to rubble. Really, even trolls must stay on topic.

    If we are going to hear from you again, you really will have to do much better than this. We expect far more from our trolls.

  • Holy Obamanation, Batman!

    Phil seems to be an Obama-worshiping imbecile . . .

    Phil, Are you better off today than you were before Obama took over?

    Well, he didn’t drop the race card . . .

    Is he one of the 37% that are out to destroy the United States America?

  • You know, Phil’s comment, “set the record for most executions”, isn’t a Bush Administration thing. After all, it’s the Democrats who laud the 60 million baby executions since Roe v Wade. And his hero Obama still didn’t shut Guantanamo down. And we’re still embroiled in “illegal” action, but maybe Libya doesn’t count in Phil’s universe.

    “A true Christian would help out their bothers and sisters.” That’s what Sarah Palin did when she gave birth to her Down Syndrome baby Trig instead of having an abortion.

    The facts never line up with liberals.

  • Liberals are charitable with other people’s money. A “true Christian” would “help out his brothers and sisters.” Multi-millionaire Obama lives in a house that could quarter the 7th Cavalry. Yet his aunt is lives on the taxpayer’s dime. He could bring her into the WH with his mother-in-law who lives with him again on your taxes. Yeah, raise taxes or YOUR grandma gets it!

    Obama is a “true Christian.” He celebrates Ramadan at the WH. And then, refuses to issue the customary (written by an aide) presidential statement recognizing the Feast of the Resurrection: Easter Sunday.

    PS: Obama hates you and me, and Barack isn’t an iota smarter than the ignorant louses that adore him. I know: I’m a racist.

Another Glorious Obama Summer

Tuesday, July 5, AD 2011

This Klavan on the Culture is from July 2010 and it is just as topical today.  The Obama years are an endless national Groudhog Day with a lousy economy, high unemployment and multiple wars being fought on autopilot, and a completely clueless Chief Executive who fails to do anything to change anything in a positive direction.  For a candidate who promised Hope and Change, Obama has delivered Despair and Stasis, the lost years of Obama.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

4 Responses to Another Glorious Obama Summer

  • No!

    The state-run media is 24/7 covering the most vital issues du jour:

    Michelle Bachmann doesn’t know in which Iowa village was born John Wayne, and she graduated from Fleabag U unlike Barracks and Michelle Antoinette who were at Yale learning why they hate America. And, Governor Palin isn’t so bright, either.

    Quick, someone ask Obama what he did with $3 trillion he added to your children’s debt burden. Each stimulus job costs you $278,000.

    I bet Governor Plain has a better explanation for the Alaska State tax situation.

  • Barracks and Michelle Antoinette who were at Yale learning why they hate America.

    I think it was Columbia and Princeton, respectively. In B.O.’s case, on top of the foundation provided by his mother and Frank Marshall Davis, &c.

  • T. Shaw;
    As Art Deco felt compelled to correct your post, so do I – The First Lady has not hated America since Americans elected her husband as President. She, for the first time, is proud of America.

  • I am almost 48 years old. I can remember as far back as Nixon and I remember the Carter Misadministration well. Obumbler is worse than Carter. Try listening to Obumbler speak without his teleprompter. My three year old speaks better than Obumbler does without his teleprompter.

    Limbaugh put it very well. Obumbler isn’t “cool”. He is COLD. Obumbler and his wife have a sense of entitlement. Note the golf trips and the vacation to Spain at $75K a day.

    Somehow, this nation lost its way after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and Russia. Bill Clinton was a person with a disgusting personal life, but the media and Hollywood loved him, so he managed to get elected – twice – with less than 50% of the so-called popular vote – while raising taxes in his first term.

    Hollywood became much more openly left while Reagan was President – not that there were not such programs before Reagan (note anything from Norman Lear). Most of the gay rights garbage emanates from Hollywood productions. That has had a huge impact on popular culture, which is the modern religion of the young and hip.

    When Obumbler was elected, there was a huge throng of college students clogging Forbes Avenue in Oakland (Pittsburgh). I wonder how many of ’em love Obumbler now that many of them have graduated and haven’t found work.

    Democrats destroy everything they touch. Look at the states controlled by Democrats – or recently controlled by Democrats. Most big cities are controlled by Democrats. How many of them have terrible schools, corrupt governments, etc.?

    Obumbler is, I think, a chastisement this nation brought upon itself and permitted by God. He is an empty suit and those who adore him have no common sense.

A One State Solution for Peace in the Middle East

Monday, June 20, AD 2011

No, no Klavan on the culture!  Everyone knows that if the Jews would simply disappear the Arab world would become an oasis of peace and tolerance!  At least that is what I have been told over the years by numerous combox adversaries and correspondents.  Prior to becoming a blogger, I would comment on other Catholic blogs, and one of my favorits sites was Amy Welborn’s Open Book.  After commenting there one day I received a lengthy e-mail from a correspondent who I responded to in a fisk format.  This correspondence occurred on April 17, 2007, and I thought that some of our readers might find it diverting: 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

49 Responses to A One State Solution for Peace in the Middle East

  • Does Israel have sins? YES! Just read the Old Testament and see also that it applies to the modern nation-state as well. So what? America has sins too. We kill over 4,000 innocents daily – probably more than the Nazis did.

    I find it odd that we compare Israel (whether fabricated political Zionism or Judiasim in general) and America with the perfect and always find them wanting. Surprise! What a shocker that nations of sinners are flawed. Yet, at the same time we highlight the good that all our enemies do. Did Saddam do some good? Was he somewhat stabilizing? Was he a counterweight against Iran? Yes. So what. He was also a murderous thug who ran a totalitarian state and often worked against our interests. Most often our legitimate interests as well as the interests of the transnational globalist bankers and their minions who act as a parasite on our country, and Israel too (psst- most these globalist bas!@&ds are Jewish! But, not really – they are actually atheists, or worse Luciferians who are only culturally ‘Jewish’ – this gives lefties the cover to be anti-Semites (but only Jewish anti-Semites, they treat Arab Semites as noble savages, you know like Native Americans and Negros – aren’t lefties sweet!) because lefties hate God and apparently God loves Jews, I think His Son’s Jewish)

    When we compare the atrocious state of Israel with the rest of the tyrannies in the middle-east, she don’t look so bad. When we compare post WWII America with the Constitutional Republic intended by the Founders she looks pretty bad, even downright disappointing. Again, so what. Compare America with all of our neighbors in the southern part of our hemisphere, most of Europe, China, Russia, or any other nation in the history of civilization for that matter. We look pretty darn good,

    The simple fact is the UN, communist (democratic socialist) powers that desire a one-world tyranny need a world war beginning in the middle east and are even moving the pieces to do so right now. Why? To exhaust the West (NATO which is the USA under Euro-socialist control) and empower the East (Commies), while redistributing our wealth to the third-world in order to gain a lock over all the natural resources. Political Zionism (which is an anti-Jewish scheme) considered establishing the homeland for the Jews in Uganda, but it was decided that had no Biblical basis. You know how we Western Christians are so stupid that we will go along with anything if you can find a textual, albeit not contextual, basis in the Bible we blindly believe in, with not rational thought.

    Israel in Palestine had both the Biblical basis and the strategic location of placing an ‘enemy’ in the middle of the middle-east. Furthermore, for just about all of its history the territory of Palestine has always been a garrison state. Just ask King Baldwin. Why would anyone want to have their homeland there? It defies logic. I would have picked New Zealand.

    If you are a tyrannical enemy of mankind and you want global hegemony how would you look at the chess board of the world? America is always standing in your way, so erode her from inside and tie her closely with Israel. Inspire the Moslem and Arab world to attack Israel and draw America into a long war to drain her (why is it that the war in Iraq was quick, decisive and extremely successful and then we entered into a long, protracted and messy occupation). This will destroy Israel, America and the Moslem world. What will be left? Atheistic Communism from China, with a resurgence of it in Russia and probably a UN Communist Federal System of global tyranny. This is Stalin, Hitler and Mao’s dream along with a host of uber-elite Western ‘capitalists’.

    Will it happen? We can’t know. Will they try? Without a doubt. If the Bible is any indication, it is likely, if we turn to God, that Israel will surprise everyone by defeating insurmountable odds. Then again, God’s Wrath has been harshest on Israel for her fornication in the past and America is no exception to this rule. The big question is not so much will a world war start in the middle-east, it is not an if, it is a when. We just have to wonder on which side of this conflict the USA will be. By all indications right now – it is not the side of Israel.

    Those pesky Jews have been causing problems forever. They undermined the utopian, pharonic regime in Egypt, they invaded and slaughtered every tribe in Palestine, they vandalized the walls of Jericho with a shofar, they brought the Colonial Western Powers (Romans) to the middle-east and their Rabi Yesua min Nazret spread a counter-revolutionary ideology that has been the bane of totalitarian governments for over 2,000 years. No wonder worldly powers hate Jews and by extension the Catholic Church and America too.

  • Just out of curiousity, was your correspondent Daniel Nichols, Marv Wood, or some other individual?

  • I know it wasn’t Marv Woods Art. I can’t recall the name of my correspondent, although it was someone whose name I didn’t recognize. I didn’t retain the original e-mails, just copies of my fisks, so I can’t check the name.

  • Just saying: to set straight the record:

    During each week in June 1967, 200 to 300 Americans were getting killed in Vietnam.

    On the other side of the world . . .

    At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over ‘Liberty,’ which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship’s electronic antennas and dishes. The ‘Liberty’ was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.

    At 1424 hrs, three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking the burning ‘Liberty’ with 20mm and 40mm shells. At 1431hrs an Israeli torpedo hit the ‘Liberty’ midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.

    Israeli gunboats circled the wounded ‘Liberty,’ firing at crewmen trying to fight the fires. At 1515, the crew were ordered to abandon ship. The Israeli warships closed and poured machine gun fire into the crowded life rafts, sinking two. As American sailors were being massacred in cold blood, a rescue mission by US Sixth Fleet carrier aircraft was mysteriously aborted on orders from the White House.

    An hour after the attack, Israeli warships and planes returned. Commander McGonagle gave the order. ‘prepare to repel borders.’ But the Israelis, probably fearful of intervention by the US Sixth Fleet, departed. ‘Liberty’ was left shattered but still defiant, her flag flying.
    The Israeli attacks killed 34 US seamen and wounded 171 out of a crew of 297, the worst loss of American naval personnel from hostile action since World War II.

    Less than an hour after the attack, Israel told Washington its forces had committed a ‘tragic error.’ Later, Israel claimed it had mistaken ‘Liberty’ for an ancient Egyptian horse transport. US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink ‘Liberty.’ So did three CIA reports; one asserted Israel’s Defense Minister, Gen. Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.

    In contrast to American outrage over North Korea’s assault on the intelligence ship ‘Pueblo,’ Iraq’s mistaken missile strike on the USS ‘Stark,’ last fall’s bombing of the USS ‘Cole’ in Aden, and the recent US-China air incident, the savaging of ‘Liberty’ was quickly hushed up by President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.

    The White House and Congress immediately accepted Israel’s explanation and let the matter drop. Israel later paid a token reparation of US $6 million. There were reports two Israeli pilots who had refused to attack ‘Liberty’ were jailed for 18 years.

    Also, during the 1973 war, they tried and failed to shoot down our SR-71’s. If I told yoiu how I know, I’d have to shoot myself.

    Tagged: Don’t Urinate on My Shoes and Tell Me It’s Raining Department.

  • Where to begin T. Shaw?

    1. Compensation-Israel paid $6,000,000.00 for damage to the Liberty, $3,323,500.00 to the families of the 34 men killed and $3, 566, 457 to the 170 crewmen wounded. Much more when I have time later today.

  • Here is a discussion you had.

    http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2007/04/okay_one.html#comments

    You were contending with “Al” (an admirer of Fr. Feeney), Morning’s Minion, Chris Sullivan, and Nate Wildermuth. The style is most unlike any one of them. The bilge about William Kristol’s defunct advocacy group sounds like Daniel Nichols, but the U.S.S. Liberty is not one of his fixations. Amusing puzzle….

  • Klaven’s Jewish one state solution would be as bad as the Palestinian one state solution. The Jewish culture that Zionism came from is just as anti-christian as the Muslim culture that now dominates the Middle East. If the Israelis were to achieve this goal of a one state solution, it would further inflame the situlation in the Middle East. They would lose the war with the Muslims in the long run, because there are more Muslims than Jews in the Middle East, and the high rate of abortions in Israel and the high Muslim birthrate are guaranteeing the IDF won’t have enough soldiers to fight it’s battles in the near future.
    If anyone wants some intelligent commentary on the Middle East from a Catholic perspective, thecatholicknight.blogspot.com is a good place to go. TAC should link to it.

  • and the high rate of abortions in Israel and the high Muslim birthrate are guaranteeing the IDF won’t have enough soldiers to fight it’s battles in the near future.

    Fertility rates have been tanking in the Arab world and adjacent areas for a generation and have been measured in recent years as being below replacement levels in Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, and Iran. Israel has a total fertility rate of 2.7 (the occidental world’s highest) and net immigration as well. See the CIA World Factbook on these matters.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

  • “You were contending with “Al” (an admirer of Fr. Feeney), Morning’s Minion, Chris Sullivan, and Nate Wildermuth.”

    It certainly was none of those gentlemen as I am quite familiar with each of their writing styles and, as you pointed out, my interlocutor exhibited none of their usual writing traits.

  • Stephen, Klavan’s one state solution was meant to be completely humorous, although in on off the record conversations Arab leaders have been known to admit wryly that their countries were often better off being run by the Turks, the French or the British. I disagree that Zionism is anti-Christian. Catholics are free to worship as they please in Israel. The problem for Arab Christians is not the Jews but their Arab muslim “brothers and sisters” whose attitude towards the Arab Christians usually run the gamut from disdainful contempt to murderous persecution. The best gift any Christian can give to an Arab Christian living in the Arab world is a one way plane ticket to the West.

  • Mac,

    Don’t bother trying to convince any sentient being that in the middle of a “life-or-death”, national-survival war, the IDF had excess fighter bombers, TP boats, and munitions and eight tactical hours to strafe life boats trying to sink an Egyptian army horse transport.

    No wait! The Egyptian horse cavalry had them surrounded!

    The 34 KIA of the Liberty and about 58,000 other Americans in the 1960’s and 1970’s were expendable.

  • Lunch time and time to respond to T. Shaw. T. Shaw, why attack the Liberty and not sink it? The Israelis had it well within their power to do so. Instead, after they realized their mistake they called off their torpedo boats and had them radio the Liberty to offer assistance. The Captain of the Liberty, Commander McGonagle, confirmed this. The Israelis also immediately notified the US embassy in Israel of the mistaken attack and provided a helicopter to fly a naval attache to the ship.

    Let us assume that the Israelis wished to sink the Liberty for some reason unknown to us. Why didn’t they do it when they had the opportunity? The conspiracy nuts and raving anti-Semites who have seized upon this have no explanation for this, just as they have been unable to provide any rational explanation as to why the Israelis would want to sink the Liberty in the first place.

    T. Shaw, if you, and all and any other sentient creatures on the planet, wish to know the actual facts about the Liberty attack, go to the website linked below:

    http://www.thelibertyincident.com/

  • Interesting comments, all. God promised Abraham that whoever curses his descendants will be cursed and whoever blesses them will be blessed. St. Paul says in Romans 11:1, “…has God rejected His people? By no means!” Indeed, every government that has persecuted the Jews lies in the dung heap of history. They are gone, and against all odds (right or wrong) there is a nation called Israel exactly as prophesied.

    I am sorry, but I can’t buy into all the anti-Israel stuff. Was Israel wrong in attacking the USS Liberty? You betcha! Is Israel really the state that God envisioned would be the re-constituted new Israel? Probably not. Is Zionism really Christian? Nope – only Christian is really Christian. But when an Israeli soldier shoots and kills a Palestinian child, it’s a complete miss whereas when an Islamic Jihaddist does the same thing, it’s a direct hit.

    Is Israel a bad nation. Yup, and so are we. And there are worse ones: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Red China for starters. We had better all repent – Jew and Gentile – before God’s wrath comes upon us. Romans 11:11-24 comes to mind.

  • Don, Zionism sprang from Jewish minds. The Jews reject Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh. I Jno. 2:22-23 and II Jno. 7 says any one or any group that believes this is anti-christ.
    As for the claim that “Christians are free to worship as they please in Israel” they may be “free” but they’re mistreated by the Israelis. Go to the catholicknight.blogspot.com and click on the article Catholics Can Not Be Zionists. Read the first comment to the article by Sarah. The Israeli’s use our Catholic Breathern as buffers to shied them from the Muslims. Some freedom, eh?
    Art, even if fertility rates have been tanking in the Arab countries, that’s not what I was talking about. The Palestinian Muslim birthrate in Israel is growing faster than the Israeli Jewish birthrate. The Israeli Jews, with the exception of the Orthodox and Haredim groups, are declining, due to abortion and contraception. Most of these people are anti-zionist, so they won’t be really eager to help the Zionist state. And that 2.7 birthrate, the highest in the Middle East, most of that 2.7 is coming from the Orthodox and Haredim, who, as I’ve already pointed out, are not too thrilled about Zionism. Again read the articles that the Catholic Knight has posted on his site about Zionism, Israel, Jews, and Middle Eastern Christians so you can be better informed about wants really going on over there.

  • “Don, Zionism sprang from Jewish minds. The Jews reject Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh. I Jno. 2:22-23 and II Jno. 7 says any one or any group that believes this is anti-christ.”

    That is not what the Church teaches Stephen.

    839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”

    “The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

    840 “And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.”

  • Don,

    The Catechism is right about those Jews who practice the Hebrew faith. However, Zionism is not Judaism. Zionism is a manufactured political movement and the only theology employed by its fabricators is Luciferianism. They twisted Scripture in order to justify Zionism to ignorant Jews and Christians. Zionism was cooked up in the same vat as Communism, democratic Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, State Capitalism, National Socialism, etc. It is an evil idea, it is not Scriptural, it has no basis in Tradition and it does not help the Jewish people in the least. In fact, it is probably a sick way of getting them all into one place so they can be more easily annihilated by their Moslem neighbors.

    The ‘Jews’ that came up with Zionism, like Theodore Herzel are cut from the same cloth as ‘Jews’ like the Rothschilds, Weishupt, Marx, Freud and Soros. That is they are worldly minded men, atheists, and Satanists who happen to be born of a Jewish womb. None of them practice the Jewish religion. They either don’t believe in God, or if they do, they hate God. Any truly faithful Jew cannot in good conscience be a Zionist (in the political sense) neither can a good Christian and especially Catholics.

  • Stephen Dalton, what you said was as follows:

    They would lose the war with the Muslims in the long run, because there are more Muslims than Jews in the Middle East, and the high rate of abortions in Israel and the high Muslim birthrate are guaranteeing the IDF won’t have enough soldiers to fight it’s battles in the near future.

    You made reference to ‘muslims…in the middle east’, not the Arab population in the West Bank, Gaza, or Israel. In any case, the recent demographic history of the broader and the narrower population have been much the same.

    The salient statistic for this discussion is the Total Fertility Rate, not the birth rate. Again, Israel is reproducing in excess of replacement levels. The size of their manpower pool is increasing, not declining, so it is difficult to understand how you acquired this fancy that their population will be denuded by abortion. While we are at it, these statistics here (source not vetted) would seem to indicate that Israel has one abortion for every eight live births, which is half what that rate is is in France or the United States (to take two examples).

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-israel.html

    The weighted average of the fertility rates for the Arab population on the West Bank and Gaza is currently 3.7. That is less than half of what it was a generation ago while the Total Fertility Rate in Israel has, if anything, increased slightly. The ‘birth rate’ in the territories in question is not ‘growing faster’ than in Israel. The differential in fertility between the two populations has declined dramatically. Also, Israel has net immigration. The West Bank and Gaza do not.

    As for the composition of Israel’s fecund population, I have not time to check proper survey research. I would note, however, that United Torah Judaism (the political party of non-Zionist Orthodox Jews in Israel) commanded about 4.7% of the vote during the country’s most recent parliamentary election. Somehow, I do not think this subpopulation accounts for Israel’s fertility.

  • Zionism is a manufactured political movement and the only theology employed by its fabricators is Luciferianism

    You think Chaim Weizmann was a devil worshiper?

  • Rubbish AK from beginning to end. Zionism is a political movement among Jews to establish a homeland for themselves after almost 2000 years of bitter persecution. Both observant and non-observant Jews have embraced it. To call it Luciferianism is both obscene and ignorant. Your ranting about a laundry list of Jews comes close to anti-Semitism. Any more along those lines and your comment will be deleted and you will be banned from this website. First and last warning. I have very low tolerance for anti-Semitism.

  • It would help the case of self-described Christian anti-Zionists if they would acknowledge that Zionism didn’t grow in some nefarious vacuum.

    Rather, it was a response to increasingly virulent anti-Semitism, often in Catholic garb. If you want to be upset about Zionism, be prepared to point a finger at our ancestors in the Christian faith.

  • I’m currently reading (and very much enjoying) David Mamet’s The Secret Knowledge. I think this passage is rather apt:

    Our American plane has been forced to land at some foreign airport, by the outbreak of World War III. It will not be allowed to depart. Two planes are leaving the airport; we must choose which we want to board. One plane is flying to Israel and one to Syria, and we must choose.

    . . . No one reading this book would get on the plane to Syria. Why? It is a despotism, opposed to the West, to women, to gays, to Jews, to free speech. It is a heinous Arab version of National Socialism, dedicated to the murder of every person in Israel. And yet one may gain status or a feeling of solidarity by embracing the “Arab cause.”

    But we embrace it only as entertainment. In the free market, which is to say when something is at stake, we will vote otherwise.

  • Some people forget Romans 11:17-24:

    But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree,
    do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you. Indeed you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either. See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated one, how much more will they who belong to it by nature be grafted back into their own olive tree.

    I especially like verses 28 and 29:

    In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

    —–

    God does NOT renege on His promises.

  • When someone brings up Bush and illegal invasion of Iraq, I go to the below website and relook what was said:

    http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/index.html

  • Hey, the IDF is on our side, now.

    However,

    1. The IDF knew it was a US ship. 0800 multiple recon flights.
    2. Aerial recon photos from recon flights delivered to higher HQ.
    3. Any E-2 gomer could see it was a US Navy ship.
    4. The pols and generals run it up the flagpole.
    5. They decided they need to stop the US Navy from observing whatever IDF was doing.
    6. Didn’t need to sink the ship to accomplish that mission.

    Anyhow,

  • Slightly off-topic, can anyone recommend a good book on the Suez Crisis? I’m currently reading a book on the Israeli War of Independence and would like to follow it up with one about 1956.

  • A nice brief history is linked below. The Osprey Essential Histories are excellent on the military aspects on any conflict in history and their maps are of very high quality:

    http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/book.aspx?bookcode=s4183

    American historians have by and large ignored the Suez crisis in 1956. The Brits have written quite a bit on it, but much of it strikes me as too focused on the domestic political consequences of the Brits going into Suez and that is not what I am interested in.

  • “5. They decided they need to stop the US Navy from observing whatever IDF was doing.
    6. Didn’t need to sink the ship to accomplish that mission. ”

    Ridiculous T. Shaw. You have not given any indication about what could be so sensitive for the Israelis that they would risk attacking an American naval vessel. If they were going to take such a risk in order not to be detected doing whatever, (Activating the ark of the Covenant? Talking to aliens?), there would only have been one way to be certain that the Liberty could not detect what they were doing and that was to send it to the bottom of the Mediterranean. Not to mention that attacking a US ship would be precisely the wrong way to get the US Navy not to pay very close attention to what the Israelis were doing from then on. The whole idea that this was a deliberate attack is simple nonsense.

  • the high rate of abortions in Israel

    This fellow Johnston has a table which offers a useful summary of the share of pregnancies lost to abortion across 101 countries. Israel is somewhere around the 30th percentile.

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp334pd.html

  • Don,

    As a Semite, I take offense to being accused of being anti-Semitic. I am pretty sure most of my Jewish friends would be shocked at that too.

    I said nothing anti-Jewish in my post. It was anti-Zionist. Whether you believe it or not, even whether it is true or not, I stated that I SEE A DIFFERENCE between the two and I chided one and praised the other. So whatever I posted was most definitely anti-Zionist, but I know that our older brothers in faith have a big role to play yet in salvation history and I do not disparage faithful Jews or the Jewish faith. This applies to modern Rabbinical Judaism as well as the ancient faith.

    The modern nation-state of Israel is NOT Biblical Israel, although it could very well be prophetic Israel. We are Israel, as in Catholics. Mary, another Jew that I love, stated it clearly in her Magnificat.

    Most of the political movements of the 19th and 20th century, including political Zionism, were cooked up by the same vain of humanistic pride.

    Note: Political Zionism is not religious Zionism. The return of the people Israel to Palestine is inevitable, it is probably occurring now as a result of political Zionism, but the intention is not the same. Faithful Jews who return to Palestine may be mentioned by St. John as the or the fore-bearers of the 144,000 in the Apocalypse, although I suspect that large numbers of Moslems who were probably Jews before the eighth century might be included. Nevertheless, the political movement of Zionism has a different intent in its inception. I am not suggesting that most participants knew that. The fear and confusion following WWII and the fact that half of the Nazi’s camp victims were Jewish moved many Jews who wouldn’t have bothered with Zionism to embrace it.

    It is clear that there is an intent to place a small, yet powerful Israel right in the middle of Arab National Socialist and Moslem Jihadists in order to ignite war and probably world war. War is good business and we always need to have enough tension to launch one anytime. Clearly the mid East is gearing up for war again, on a big scale. Will it be the trigger of WWIII? Perhaps. Yet, if we would pray the Rosary for Peace, perhaps not.

    I apologize if my poor writing skills sparked your rebuke. Nevertheless, being that my Mother and Queen is Jewish, I do not take these things lightly.

  • AK, you can hold whatever views you wish, but on this blog there are limits on what I will tolerate in the comboxes. Your comment above does not come close to those limits, even though I disagree with a fair amount of it. Your earlier comment went over the edge of what I am willing to tolerate in regard to the discussion of Jews and Zionism, and I pointed it out to put you on notice since you have been commenting here for a long time and I did not wish to immediately ban you as a result. As for your views of Israel, I would merely note that John Paul II, who did so much to improve relations between Jews and Catholics, did not share them. I quote from his speech given in 2000 during his pilgrimage to Israel:

    “Dear President and Madame Weizman,
    Dear Prime Minister and Madame Barak,
    Dear Israeli Friends,
    Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    1. Yesterday, from the heights of Mount Nebo I looked across the Jordan Valley to this blessed land. Today, it is with profound emotion that I set foot in the Land where God chose to “pitch his tent” (Jn 1:14; cf. Ex 40:34-35; 1 Kgs 8:10-13), and made it possible for man to encounter him more directly.

    In this year of the two thousandth anniversary of the Birth of Jesus Christ, it has been my strong personal desire to come here and to pray in the most important places which, from ancient times, have seen God’s interventions, the wonders he has done. “You are the God who works wonders. You showed your power among the peoples” (Ps 77:15).

    Mr President, I thank you for your warm welcome, and in your person I greet all the people of the State of Israel.

    2. My visit is both a personal pilgrimage and the spiritual journey of the Bishop of Rome to the origins of our faith in “the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob” (Ex 3:15). It is part of a larger pilgrimage of prayer and thanksgiving which led me first to Sinai, the Mountain of the Covenant, the place of the decisive revelation which shaped the subsequent history of salvation. Now I shall have the privilege of visiting some of the places more closely connected with the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Along every step of the way I am moved by a vivid sense of God who has gone before us and leads us on, who wants us to honour him in spirit and in truth, to acknowledge the differences between us, but also to recognize in every human being the image and likeness of the One Creator of heaven and earth.

    3. Mr President, you are known as a man of peace and a peacemaker. We all know how urgent is the need for peace and justice, not for Israel alone but for the entire region. Many things have changed in relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel since my predecessor Pope Paul VI came here in 1964. The establishment of diplomatic relations between us in 1994 set a seal on efforts to open an era of dialogue on questions of common interest concerning religious freedom, relations between Church and State and, more generally, relations between Christians and Jews. On another level, world opinion follows with close attention the peace process which finds all the peoples of the region involved in the difficult search for a lasting peace with justice for all. With new-found openness towards one another, Christians and Jews together must make courageous efforts to remove all forms of prejudice. We must strive always and everywhere to present the true face of the Jews and of Judaism, as likewise of Christians and of Christianity, and this at every level of attitude, teaching and communication (cf. Address to the Jewish Community of Rome, 13 April 1986, 5).

    4. My journey therefore is a pilgrimage, in a spirit of humble gratitude and hope, to the origins of our religious history. It is a tribute to the three religious traditions which co-exist in this land. For a long time I have looked forward to meeting the faithful of the Catholic communities in their rich variety, and the members of the various Christian Churches and Communities present in the Holy Land. I pray that my visit will serve to encourage an increase of interreligious dialogue that will lead Jews, Christians and Muslims to seek in their respective beliefs, and in the universal brotherhood that unites all the members of the human family, the motivation and the perseverance to work for the peace and justice which the peoples of the Holy Land do not yet have, and for which they yearn so deeply. The Psalmist reminds us that peace is God’s gift: “I will hear what the Lord God has to say, a voice that speaks of peace, peace for his people and his friends, and those who turn to him in their hearts” (Ps 85:8). May peace be God’s gift to the Land he chose as his own!

    Shalom.”

  • The attack on the USS Liberty has all the attributes of a deliberate attack. Quite clearly the downing of the Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes was a tragic mistake. Captain Rogers had a window of only about a minute to decide on a missile launch. At the back of every Allied captain’s mind at that time was the fiery demise of the UK destroyers, in the earlier Falklands war at the hands of Argentinian pilots armed with Exocet missiles. A very strong and convincing case has also been made that the downing of the Korean airliner over Sakhalin in 1985, by a Soviet pilot was similarly a tragic error, brought about by the fatal confluence of loss of navigation on the 747, the lack of any means of contact between the fighter pilot and the stricken plane, and the cat and mouse games that US and Soviet air forces play in that part of the world.

    However given the duration of the attack on the Liberty and the fact that the Israeli pilots could make out the US markings, which is quite unlike these other cases, the weight of the circumstantial evidence points to a deliberate and sustained attack. To my conspiratorial mind, in 1967 some Israelis who had not forgiven the Americans for sabotaging the 1956 Suez campaign against Nasser felt no qualms about attacking a US ship which they had reason to believe was not on an innocent mission. They had been burned once before by the Americans, and were not about to let them a mere eleven years later, derail what in the event proved to be an overwhelming victory over the Muslims.

  • Whomever said, “In war, the first casualty is truth.”

    “The whole idea that this was a deliberate attack is simple nonsense.”

    You insist that the Israeli War Ministry and Government and IDF pilots (do not wear eyeglasses, either!) did not know that that was a US Navy vessel, or that the IDF and Israeli Government did not issue orders to attack said noncombatant US Navy vessel for two hours. That is beyond credibility.

    I do not know the motive. I will not speculate.

    You may ask Moshe Dayan why he ordered the USS Liberty massacre . . . when you see him.

  • “I do not know the motive. I will not speculate.”

    Because you have no answer T.Shaw as to what could have possibly motivated a deliberate attack, and why, if the attack was deliberate, the Israelis did not finish the attack and send the Liberty to the bottom of the sea, rather than halting the attack and seeking to give aid to the Liberty. Like most conspiracy theories, those surrounding the Liberty flourish in the absence of knowledge of what actually occurred, and endure because of passion substituting for simple common sense.

  • The U.S.S. Liberty has been a particular fixation of the American Educational Trust and advocacy journalists like Donald Neff (who Time made use of as their bureau chief in Jerusalem, go figure). These characters find nothing anomalous about the absence of any conceivable purpose for attacking the U.S.S. Liberty because they regard Israel as simply malign. In their minds, Israel does this because that is what Israel does. Some more inventive sorts have concocted an explanation that states that Israel attacked the Liberty as a diversion to cover up war crimes like the mass execution of prisoners in the Sinai. That no such mass execution can be shown ever to have occurred is a petty detail.

  • Thank God for Israel. American Jews have a place to go when America goes belly up. I’m emigrating to Canada.

    Of course, the IDF made many other fatal mistakes during the six day war.*

    It is counter-intuitive to think the IDF believed the USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship. Facts prove otherwise.

    I do not need to prove motive**. The IDF had the opportunity and they did it – habeus 34 corpi. Yeah! Your ilk got OJ off on two murders. What is 34 to a whole country?

    If you need the motive . . . When you and Mac get to the the place where he has gone, you can ask Dayan why he did it.

    * Wikipedia: “In three hours on the morning of June 5, 1967, the first day of the Six Day War, the Israeli Air Force executed Operation Focus, crippling the opposing Arab air forces and attaining air supremacy for the remainder of the war. In a surprise attack, the IAF destroyed most of the Egyptian Air Force while its planes were still on the ground. By the end of the day, with surrounding Arab countries also drawn into the fighting, the IAF had mauled the Syrian and Jordanian air forces as well, striking as far as Iraq. After six days of fighting Israel claimed a total of 452 Arab aircraft destroyed, of which 49 (11%) were aerial victories.”

    ** I am not a tool sitting in your jury box, counselor. I prefer the company of used car salesmen and real state agents.

    Love them ad hominems, too.

  • No ad hominems T. Shaw, but simple analysis of what happened. You, like all those who embrace a conspiracy angle on the Liberty, are unable to ascribe motive to the Israelis to conduct a deliberate attack or explain why the Israelis called off the attack and offered assistance. People may be entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

    I believe you may have been taken off moderation. Back on moderation for you, not for your arguments in this thread but because of the “colorful and exuberant manner” in which you sometimes express your opinions.

  • “I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship.”
    — NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

  • The Israelis screwed up and people died. The Israelis admitted they screwed up (maybe they didn’t admit the screw up in the way that some would have liked them to have admitted the screw up, but they did admit it). The Israelis paid reparations. What more should we or could we want?

    Given a choice between Israel and most other nations on this planet, I would choose Israel.

  • I want somebody to apologize to USS Liberty survivors who were accused of being Arab propagandists and antisemites.

  • I wonder if we deliberately attacked HMAS Hobart on June 17, 1969?

    “On the early hours of 17 June, while preventing North Vietnamese resupply of Tiger Island, Hobart was fired upon by a United States Air Force (USAF) aircraft.[6] The aircraft approached Hobart with its IFF transponder switched off, and fired three missiles during two passes.[6] The second missile failed to explode, but the first and third damaged the superstructure, radar room, exhaust funnels, Ikara missile magazine, and superstructure, killed two RAN personnel, and injured seven others.[6] The aircraft came around for a third attack run, but was scared off when Hobart fired five rounds from her main gun.[7] Despite being damaged, Hobart sailed to the nearby cruiser USS Boston, which had been hit by a missile from another USAF aircraft, and formed an anti-aircraft screen with the cruiser and her escort, USS Blandy.[7] After being relieved, Hobart sailed for Subic Bay, where the damage was inspected by RAN and USN personnel, including three admirals.[7]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Hobart_(D_39)

    I say deliberate since these type of attacks never happen by accident and our motivation was clearly to corner the world market on kangaroos and bloomin’ onions.

  • “I do not need to prove motive.”

    And yet people wonder why America is festooned with lawyers. As an aside, it’s strikingly reminiscent of a rather famous Jewish bureaucrat’s similar approach to what he also regarded as legal frippery: “What need have we for witnesses?”

    “I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship.”
    — NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

    Have these been declassified, or did a Deputy Director of No Such Agency talk out of turn and disclose the content of classified material? If it’s the former, I’d sincerely like to read them.

  • You need to put me back on moderation.

  • I got my version of the Liberty incident from reading Bamford’s book which paints the attack as a deliberate and unprovoked one in order to hide an ongoing Israeli massacre of Egyptian POWs. However after having just read Michael Oren’s analysis ‘The USS Liberty: Case Closed’ I have to agree that there is a strong case for the defence. In the first place there was no widespread massacre of Egyptain prisoners. It appears that there was a series of fateful coincidences and errors that led to the attack. Pres Johnson, who is routinely reviled in the further reaches of Libertyland as a sellout to Israel, emerges as a sensible man. Apparently the planes that were sent out from the USS Saratoga at the distress signal of the Liberty were F-104s armed with nuclear weapons. It was a most sensible decision to recall them back. Had they been used, it would have been akin to dropping a 1000lb bomb to settle a playground fight. The clincher in the NSA transcripts is that it shows that Israeli pilots for whatever reasons thought that were in fact attacking an Egyptian ship. Again the fact the Israelis launched 5 or 6 torpedoes, only one of which hit home points to a helter-skelter operation rather than one of clockwork precision directed from on high. Unless one wishes to posit another level of conspiracy, this time involving pilots using napalm instead of missiles and naval units unable to find their targets, the conclusion has to be that the Liberty incident was the result of tragic mistakes rather than a deliberate act.

  • Thank you Ivan. Honest assessment of historical evidence is always necessary when trying to recreate the past. The best study that I have read of the Liberty incident is that of Jay Cristol, a Captain in the US Naval Reserve and a Bankruptcy Judge. He has a topnotch site in which he goes over the incident in exacting detail.

    Below is a link to a letter Cristol has at his site by Marvin E. Nowicki, who was one of the Hebrew-English specialists aboard a Navy EC121 and who listened in on the Israeli pilots and the crews of the Israelis motor torpedo boats during the attack on the Liberty. The text of the letter is as follows:

    “Letter from Marvin E. Nowicki, Ph.D., published in The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, May 16, 2001, page A-23:

    Tragic “Gross Error” In a 1967 Attack

    In regard to Timothy Naftali’s review of James Bamford’s book “Body of Secrets” (Leisure & Arts, May 9): Mr. Naftali doesn’t quite have it right concerning the book portion dealing with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. I know because I am the person to whom Mr. Natfali [sic] refers as the “chief Hebrew-language analyst” aboard the U.S. Navy (not Air Force) EC121 aircraft. He says that I recall one of my teammates telling me of hearing references to “a U.S. flag” from Israeli pilots.

    For the record, we (my teammate and I) both heard and recorded the references to the U.S. flag made by the pilots and captains of the motor torpedo boats. My personal recollection remains after 34 years that the aircraft and MTBs prosecuted the Liberty until their operators had an opportunity to get close-in and see the flag, hence the references to the flag.

    My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford’s, is that the attack, though terrible and tragic especially to the crew members and their families on that ill-fated day in June 1967, was a gross error. How can I prove it? I can’t unless the transcripts/tapes are found and released to the public. I last saw them in a desk drawer at NSA in the late 1970s before I left the service.

    MARVIN E. NOWICKI, PH.D.
    Ashley, Ill.”

    http://www.thelibertyincident.com/nowicki-wsj.html

    And here is a link to the NSA intercepts which were released by the NSA in 2003:

    http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/recordings.shtml

  • Hi Donald, I have since read some of the threads on this matter. The impression I now have is that some of the more subtle (and thus more effective) insinuations, are from followers of the Pat Buchanan School of Selective Historical Reconstruction. For a particularly dishonest example, a phrase from an Israeli pilot “it is an American flag” is melded together with a phrase from his control station “fire anyway” or words to that effect to imply that the Israelis deliberately set out to destroy an American ship, when the truth is that the Israeli control was acting on the belief that it was an Egyptian ship running a false American flag. In addition there is too much recovered ‘memory’ years after the event, strewn around for my liking.

    The original inquest conducted a few days after the event http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/CourtOfInquiry.pdf contradicts later, lurid accounts of Israelis shelling lifeboats and firing on seamen in the waters among other lies. Not for nothing do the Romans have a principle of law : the first thought is the true thought.

  • Quite right Ivan. I hope I have conveyed on this blog what a sacred thing History is to me. History is not served when people attempt to twist it by lies to serve another purpose than letting us know what happened in the past. Here is another example, the use of alleged unnamed informants:

    “Fifteen years after the attack an Israeli Pilot who was ordered to participate in the attack came forward, approaching Liberty survivors and former Congressman Paul N. McCloskey. The pilot relates that he identified the ship as American and informed his superiors, but was told to proceed with the attack. When he refused to do so, he was arrested on returning to base.”

    Note, no name is given, nothing is brought forward to substantiate this. This unnamed fellow is usually described as a “senior Israeli lead pilot”.

    Well, the problem with all of this is we know who the lead Israeli pilot on the attack was: Yiftah Spector. After he was dismissed by the IAF in 2003 for his signing of a pilot’s protest against Israeli air operations in Gaza and on the West Bank, Spector talked about the attack on the Liberty. Here is a story that appeared on this in the Jerusalem Post on October 10, 2003:

    “An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he had no bombs – otherwise he would have sunk her.

    “There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place,” said Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.

    After 36 years Spector, who this week was dismissed by the IAF for signing the pilots’ refusal letter protesting the policy of targeted killings, agreed to speak to a reporter for the first time on his role in the attack on the Liberty, an American spy ship strafed on the fourth day of the war.

    Flying a Mirage III fighter jet code named “Kursa” or couch, Spector was the first pilot to reach the ship, which was about 20 nautical miles west of Gaza. He had been on an air-to-air mission and was not loaded with bombs.

    Spector, now 63, went on to become a triple ace, shooting down 15 enemy aircraft, and take part in the 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, earning himself a place in the pantheon of Israeli fly boys. This week he ended a 20-year stint teaching new generations of pilots.

    Spector had always refused to discuss the attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 US sailors and wounded 172, or even be revealed as the pilot who led the attack on her. Until now.

    “I did not fire on the Liberty as a human target. I was sent to attack a sailing vessel. This ship was on an escape route from the El Arish area, which at that same moment had heavy smoke rising from it,” Spector said.

    “It was thought to be an Egyptian vessel. This ship positively did not have any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned with was that it was not one of ours. I looked for the symbol of our navy, which was a large white cross on its deck,” he told The Jerusalem Post. “This was not there, so it wasn’t one of ours.”

    The concern of the IAF was that Spector and his wingman, who had been diverted from the Suez Canal, would strike one of the Israel Navy ships in pursuit of the vessel, which was assumed to be Egyptian. IAF archival recordings of the pilots’ radio transmission of the actual attack obtained by the Post show that Spector was specifically requested to verify that the ship was a military vessel and not Israeli.

    According to the June 8, 1967, radio transmission, Spector said: “I can’t identify it but in any case it’s a military ship.”

    Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix what he remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does not always match archival facts.

    “I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I photographed it,” said Spector, who retired from active duty as a brigadier-general in 1984.

    Experts intimately acquainted with the incident said that the only photos Spector took were from his gun-sight camera during his strafing run. Regardless of whether the 455-foot ship bristling with eavesdropping antennas flew a US flag, which it evidently did from its starboard halyard, that banner was shot off in Spector’s first strafing pass.

    “I was told on the radio that it was an Egyptian ship off the Gaza coast. Hit it. The luck of the ship was that I was armed only with light ammunition [30mm] against aircraft. If I had had a bomb it would be sitting on the bottom today like the Titanic. I promise you,” Spector said.

    The 30mm rounds were armor piercing, which to this day led Liberty survivors to believe they had been under rocket attack. Spector’s first pass ignited a fire which caused the ship to billow black smoke. Ironically, Spector transmitted he suspected the Liberty was putting out smoke to deliberately mask itself.

    “Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and not one of ours] and pulled the trigger,” Spector said.

    “The crew should be thankful for their luck [that I was on an air-to-air mission and did not have any bombs]. It is a pity we attacked. I’m sorry for poor Capt. (William Loren) McGonagle, who was wounded in the leg and the other guys who were killed and wounded.”

    “I’m sorry for the mistake. Years later my mates dropped flowers on the site where the ship was attacked,” Spector said. “I’m the last guy who has a problem with admitting mistakes and asking for forgiveness. There was a mistake, but it wasn’t my mistake.”

    He added he remains baffled that the conspiracy theories live on that Israel deliberately attacked the US intelligence ship. He suggested it might be due to anti-Semitism, or anti-Israeli sentiments.

    “I know that after the war one of the first things that was done was the establishment of a [US] senator’s inquiry. I know this personally, because I was called upon to testify before it. They came to the country and I was questioned. I told them what I told you just now – that there was a mistake. I am sorry for the mistake. In war mistakes happen,” Spector said.

    He said that he had never in the past 36 years ever met with any of the Liberty survivors, but has no qualms about doing so now.

    “They must understand that a mistake was made here,” Spector said. “The fool is one who wanders about in the dark in dangerous places, so they should not come with any complaints.”

Borders are for Fascists

Monday, June 13, AD 2011

I don’t know Klavan on the culture.  If only fascists support the Arizona law, there seems to be a lot of fascism going around since eight states are currently copying the Arizona law, even which that law is still enjoined by a Federal district judge.  Illegal immigration is down about eight percent in recent years however, due mainly to the truly lousy economy.  Obamanomics, it is good for something after all!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

2 Responses to Borders are for Fascists

5 Responses to The Liberal Mind Explained

  • That one quote explains all one needs to know about liberalism.

  • The best definition of liberalism is “equal freedom,” and it is deeply embedded in the American founding. Unfortunately it has evolved today into anarcho-tyranny, and the “conservative” movement has waaaay too much right-liberalism (“freedom” as of a high value). Yet liberalism is also inescapable in our socio-political context (we are not the French and the Spanish conservatives of old, and cannot be, sadly, being born of revolution).

    This can be seen even in Burke, the Whig and defender of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (and a man I very much admire).

    Catholic conservatives have extremely little place in Anglo-American thought, and the reason is the turn away from Aquinas, from Henry VIII to the Prince to both George III and the revolt.

  • Ambrose Bierce may have had it right: “A conservative is a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal who wishes to replace them with others.”

  • My father-in-law always says that the word “liberal” (in the political context) means a “liberal application of laws” (ie. more laws) while “conservative” (also in the political context) means “a conservative application of laws” (ie. less laws).
    When I used these in a discussion with a liberal friend, he called me a liar and that it was exactly the opposite. You know what they say, denial is the first step towards acceptance.

  • A liberal is a person who is:

    Valiantly fighting the injustices
    Caused by the last generation of liberals
    Thus providing injustices
    To be valiantly opposed
    By the next generation of liberals.

The Right to Kill Your Kid

Tuesday, May 10, AD 2011

Right you are Klavan on the Culture!  Abortion is a perfect example of the tranformation of a fairly low level debate state by state into a national issue that haunts the nation year after year.  As the Supreme Court succeeded so well in resolving the slavery question by the Dred Scott decision, so it has succeeded in resolving the abortion issue by the Roe v. Wade decsion.  Of course that is if “resolve” means “transform an issue into a nation wide fierce controversy that will never go away until it is resolved through other means than the courts”.

Justice Scalia put it well in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992):

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

4 Responses to The Right to Kill Your Kid

  • And that is what liberalism is all about – you’re liberated to do whatever you want without consequence and thus you enslave yourself to the whims of the State. In rejecting God and His Law, the liberal replaces Him with the nanny State that bequeaths on man the “right” to murder our offspring. This is the essence of the liberal mantra for global population control and enviro-wackism. But until abortion is stopped, no liberal scheme for peace and prosperity will work.

    The children of Israel and Judah sacrificed their children to Baal, Asteroth, Molech, and the other Canaanite gods. Today in Obama’s “Amerika” is no different. Nor will God’s response be any different. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

  • A profound metaphor of the liberal “movement” was presented in “Slumdog Millionaire” where Salim’s brother would bring to adult gangsters (liberals, you liberals!) little boys whom they blinded to increase the “take” of rupees they could beg.

    Liberals’ unworkable, destructive solutions to exaggerated or fabricated crises create greater misery and more (in addition to 45,000,000 killed in abortions) misery and dependent, desperate poor people.

    Let’s go to the record . . . One-in-seven need food stamps; 18% (real) unemployment; unaffordable food/fuel prices; millions of foreclosures; dpressed housing prices; national bankruptcy; etc.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Funny how in the same nearly 40 years we have had an increase in pornography (its mainstream now), sexual assault, child trafficking, recreational drug use, the enslavement of women (assuming you think man is most free in his or her own home and not in the workforce) and all sorts of other ills.

    Could it be that someone has an agenda to separate us from our Maker and make us into slaves? Well at least we have a post-racist, post-partisan president who can save the world (assuming you exclude being safe in your own mother’s womb of course), right?

68 Responses to Conservative Reality, Liberal Fantasies

  • Liberalism and conservatism, two delusions separated by a common reality.

  • Brzzt! Wrong Maryland Bill, but thanks for playing!

  • Pingback: Conservative Reality, Liberal Fantasies | The American Catholic - Christian IBD
  • Ah, Law & Order!
    It would be interesting to compare murders of abortionists as such during the run of the show (maybe two) vs. L&O-world (at least once a season).

    Otoh, Jack McCoy seems never to have prosecuted a gay domestic homicide or a “hate crime” like defacing a church.

  • And Jack McCoy is portrayed as a Catholic, though a non-practicing one. How like all too many so-called “Catholics” in these United States. God will raise son of Abraham from the stones themselves – Matthew 3:9.

  • McCoy is the liberal stereotype of the “good” Catholic, a fallen away one! Raised by a brutal Irish Catholic cop father who beat him and was a racist. ( The example given on the show is hilarious. McCoy’s dad beats him up for dating a Polish girl!) Since his father was Irish of course he was a drunk and McCoy has his own (past) problems with the bottle.

    As to religion:

    “McCoy was raised Catholic but does not appear to be in practice, and has not been for some time. In the episode “Angel”, it is revealed that McCoy was educated by the Jesuits. In the Season 17 episode “Good Faith”, he describes himself as “a lapsed Catholic”. On several occasions, religion has been the subject of various cases. In the episode “Thrill”, in which two teenage boys are accused of killing a man just for fun, McCoy finds his case particularly complicated when one of the suspects confesses the crime to his uncle, who happens to be a priest. When the confession tape is labeled privileged, McCoy ignores the bishop’s request to preserve the sacrament of reconciliation and instead tries to use the tape as evidence. When Detective Rey Curtis (Benjamin Bratt) tries to dissuade McCoy from doing so, reminding him that he is a Catholic, McCoy responds, “Not when I’m at work.”

    By the episode “Under God”, McCoy had particularly soured on the Church. When a man is accused of killing a drug dealer who killed the man’s son, a priest confesses to the crime. Though McCoy personally believes that the priest is covering for the man, he prosecutes the priest instead. At the end of the episode, McCoy says that he lost his faith after the death of a childhood friend.”

    If McCoy had been black, this level of stereotyping would involve constant references to rhythym, Gospel singing, fried chicken and watermelons. Of course such crude stereotyping is reserved for “safe” targets today like Irish Catholics and Evangelical Christians.

  • No, pro-lifers are not the ones supporting murder in the abortion debate, communists are not romantic reformers who just want to help people, most murders are not committed by rich white men, segregationists in the South were not Republicans, the US military is not filled with bloodthirsty maniacs, Christians are not some sort of weird cult, Republicans are not all idiots

    As a liberal, I don’t subscribe to a single one of those propositions. But I am intriged by the conservative proposition that in the private market, businesses will do what is most efficient and profitable, except in the entertainment industry, where the bosses substitute a doctrinaire ideology contrary to wise business practices. Fascinating.

  • “where the bosses substitute a doctrinaire ideology contrary to wise business practices.”

    The endless parade of “America is the demon in the war on terror” films Kurt, which have all tanked at the box office, demonstrate that ideology will usually trump the bottom line in Hollywood.

  • Having read Kurt’s response, I confess that I simply don’t understand the liberal mindset. Liberals are a completely alien breed. I see sex ed and condom use taught in public schools because of libs. I see homosexual sodomy glorified as a civil right because of libs. I see abortion touted as reproductive rights because of libs. I see porn touted as freedom of speech because of libs. I just don’t get it, and quite frankly don’t want to.

  • Really Donald? That is the best you can do? Repeating of the most tired, hackneyed phrases on the internet?

    I had written a lengthy rebuttal, pointing out a few of the many conservative delusions that exist but then I decided, I would just steal the words of someone else like you did… but I think I will choose someone better to steal from… so in the words of G.K. Chesterton, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

    So, if I am wrong, I guess Chesterton is wrong as well… though I think it would be unfortunate for anyone claiming to be Catholic to dismiss him with some trite comeback.

  • Are Conservatives or Republicans the party of God? Nope. Are the liberals or Democrats? Nope. But of the two, only one legitimatizes abortion as reproductive rights, only one sanctifies homosexual sodomy, only one promotes porn as freedom of speech, only one demands sex ed in public schools, only one has consistently worked to marginalize anything Christian in Western Society.

    I am not enamored with conservativism or the Republican Party, and they certainly aren’t the party of God. But the alternative is worse.

  • “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

    In what century and country did Chesty exist?

    Burt Prelutsky quoted at “Some Have Hats”: “Whether it’s insisting that global warming is going to raise ocean levels by 20 feet; that heterosexual AIDS is a major health concern; that law-abiding Americans can’t be trusted with guns; that every nation and every culture is superior to our own; that illegal aliens and Islamic jihadists are entitled to all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens; that providing 31 million additional people with health insurance will save us billions of dollars; that Supreme Court justices should essentially be social workers who get to wear their robes to work; that drilling for oil and digging for coal are evil endeavors; that windmills and sunbeams can supply all the energy a modern industrial nation needs; that Christian symbols should be eliminated from the national landscape; and that the redistribution of personal wealth is a moral imperative; liberals display an arrogant disdain for traditional American virtues, not to mention logic and common sense.”

  • . But I am intriged by the conservative proposition that in the private market, businesses will do what is most efficient and profitable, except in the entertainment industry, where the bosses substitute a doctrinaire ideology contrary to wise business practices. Fascinating.

    I would imagine that the contention is more that many in the entertainment industry and heavily ideological, and that they often end up producing grey biased entertainment as a result without particularly meaning to. (Obviously, with some “issue” films, they do mean to.)

    That is the sort of thing which happens when people have radically different ideas about reality.

  • Really Donald? That is the best you can do? Repeating of the most tired, hackneyed phrases on the internet?

    This coming from someone whose entire comment was just a tired refrain we’ve heard countless times from the “holier than thou” brigade of supposed non-partisans. Really, what was the in depth, staggering commentary that Donald was supposed to reply to?

    So, if I am wrong, I guess Chesterton is wrong as well…

    I didn’t realize that GK Chesterton was an infallible source of Christian witness whose every utterance every Catholic had to fully agree with. And here I thought he was just a brilliant polemicist who was prone to human error just like everybody else. I also note that Chesterton was writing early 20th century politics, and therefore his quip might not be fully apt to today’s situation.

  • “Really Donald? That is the best you can do? Repeating of the most tired, hackneyed phrases on the internet?”

    Your comment wasn’t worth any more effort than that Maryland Bill.

    “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

    G.K. Chesterton wasted a good many years on Distributist nonsense and that quotation is part and parcel of his attempt along with his brother Cecil and Hilaire Belloc to forge a “third way” in economics and politics. Like most of Chesterton’s obiter dicta in regard to most subjects it is much more amusing than true. This of course leaves aside the fact that the terms Progressive and Conservative have different meanings in an English and American political context.

  • I would imagine that the contention is more that many in the entertainment industry and heavily ideological, and that they often end up producing grey biased entertainment as a result without particularly meaning to. (Obviously, with some “issue” films, they do mean to.)

    That is the sort of thing which happens when people have radically different ideas about reality.

    But I thought private market forces should correct this? Why is the entertainment industry a singular exception to the natural and beneficial forces of the private market?

    BTW, as a liberal, I also don’t subscribe to any of the additional assertions put forward as hallmarks of liberalism, save the fact I and most liberals do oppose laws to imprison homosexuals.

  • Why doesn’t Detroit make better cars, when it’s obvious from the fact people buy so many Hondas and Toyotas that people want something other than a lot of what the big three provide?

    Free markets aren’t perfectly efficient unless you work at U Chicago, and what they do is select winners and losers, not make sure that all market actors do what people want. (plus, there’s obviously a large segment of the population which is fine with Hollywood stereotypes because they agree with them)

    And then, there are times when Hollywood does turn out things which more conservative audiences love — and sometimes Hollywood itself seems a little surprised by this. I recall Siskal and Ebert (who I used to watch religiously — and much enjoyed despite their bias) doing an entire extra show on why they hated The movie Independence Day and couldn’t understand why anyone else liked it.

  • Free markets aren’t perfectly efficient …[they do] not make sure that all market actors do what people want.

    Thank you. That’s all I’m looking for.

    Well, maybe that and maybe an explanation of the conservative moral objection to pornography, abortion, etc. but the suggestion that “its just business” when people profit from such — I’m referring to the “pass” given a Republican Governor who owned facilities doing abortions and the likely GOP presidential candidate who was on the board of directors of a leading distributor of pornography.

  • Why is the entertainment industry a singular exception to the natural and beneficial forces of the private market?

    Two hypotheses:

    1. The social thought incorporated into a work of entertainment is generally incidental to why it appeals to the modal viewer.

    2. The studio executives are reliant on their (creative) labor force. The sort of social and political polarities in contemporary society often devolve into a battle between word and image merchants and every other sector, with the wage-earning majority lining up on one side according to a different set of subcultural affiliations. Antecedent to an understanding of social life and antecedent to an occupational choice are factors which render one highly corellated to another (re-inforced by socialization). In short, there are almost no Republicans in the screen-writing trade. (In other trades, pervasive groupthink removes competitive disadvantages to dysfunctional practices. If everyone defines a dissident as an incompetant, no service provider suffers from ejecting him.

    Antecedent to your question is a notion that central planning or mercantile regulations or granting para-statal privileges to rent-seeking associations corrects defects in the operations of market, rather than manufacturing new (and worse) defects.

  • Nobody ever said that there aren’t liberal Republicans otherwise known as RINOs. They are worse than Democrats because they are hypocrites and traitors to conservativism. For example, Guiliani is Republican and pro-abortion (as well as an adulterer). I wouldn’t vote for him. If it came to a choice between him and a liberal, and there were no 3rd party choices, then I simply wouldn’t vote. I am disgusted with this whole stinking mess where principles are sacrificed for political expediency. And I am equally disgusted at the liberal mantra of social justice and the common good while they murder the unborn. But then again, that’s politics.

    Jesus did tell Pontius Pilate that His Kingdom is NOT of this world.

  • Art,

    On the prose style, I gotta say: Total win. 😉

    Kurt,

    Well, maybe that and maybe an explanation of the conservative moral objection to pornography, abortion, etc. but the suggestion that “its just business” when people profit from such — I’m referring to the “pass” given a Republican Governor who owned facilities doing abortions and the likely GOP presidential candidate who was on the board of directors of a leading distributor of pornography.

    Well, clearly social conservatives (the divide between social conservatives and business conservatives and libertarians is particularly wide on this issue) don’t think that pornography and abortion are “just a business”, in that they seek to ban them via force of law.

    I think you’d find that social conservatives would be highly negative towards any candidate who profited directly from abortion or pornography — though the issue is that liberal sometimes play dumb “gotcha” games on this kind of topic. If a conservative candidate is sitting on the board of Vivid Entertainment or Playboy, I think you’d find conservatives would drop him like the proverbial hot potato. However, if he’s on the board of Time Warner (a cable company and internet provider which, yes, does provide porn on some of it’s channels) a lot of people would see that as something other than making money off porn — even if they would strongly support forcing Time Warner to stop providing porn.

    Similarly, people are naturally going to look at sitting on the board of an abortion clinic (something which exists to provide abortion) differently from sitting on the board of a hospital which does occasionally perform abortions (as most non-Catholic hospitals do.)

  • Law and Order actually has had characters from across the political spectrum, and while occasionally you will have an episode driven by a political hobbyhorse, it’s one of the few shows on TV where likable characters espouse conservative and/or religious views. For example, while Jack McCoy (Sam Waterson’s character) is a liberal lapsed Catholic, Abbie Carmichael (Angie Harmon) was a pro-life conservative, as was McCoy’s boss (Fred Thompson), and his current replacement as lead ADA. Rey Curtis (Benjamin Bratt) was a devout Catholic, as his current replacement.

    In fact, I’d say that the split between liberal and conservative characters on the show is roughly 50/50, and the conservative ones are not portrayed as being less moral, caring, competent, etc., than the liberal ones. Given that the show is set in New York City, that may mean conservatives are overrepresented.

  • Angie Harmon didn’t stay long. A subsequent Christian ADA was murdered after less than a year. Fred Thompson didn’t stay too long due to Presidential ambitions and his very long term predecessor was a fairly standard Old Guard Liberal with curmudgeonly flourishes that I rather liked. The stories themselves do have a usually very pronounced liberal slant, except on the death penalty. I do however enjoy the outrage over one episode on abortion “Dignity” by the rabidly pro-abort RH Reality Check:

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/28/the-law-and-order-abortion-disaster-and-the-wasteland-tv

  • I am intriged by the conservative proposition that in the private market, businesses will do what is most efficient and profitable, except in the entertainment industry, where the bosses substitute a doctrinaire ideology contrary to wise business practices.

    This is an astute point. This, combined with the fact that when people have attempted to make explicitly conservative films or television shows they have tended to be flops, makes me think that the current liberal tilt to media probably is what is most efficient and profitable.

    Why is that? Well, for one thing, writers, actors, etc., tend to be liberal. This means that the most talented writers are probably going to write with a liberal slant and the most powerful performances are going to be by actors who espouse liberal beliefs. So even if movie producers were going strictly on quality, we would expect a liberal slant overall.

    On the consumer side, my guess is that when it comes down to it, conservatives simply care less about having contrary political views espoused by films and tv shows they watch than do liberals. I know a lot of conservatives, for example, who really loved the show the West Wing, despite its liberal politics, because the acting, writing, etc. were really good. Would liberals have similarly flocked to the show if the heroes were all conservatives? Somehow I doubt it.

    There are some conservatives who are really adverse to watching a movie or tv show with a liberal message, but this type of person is less likely to watch movies or tv to begin with (or at least is less likely to watch certain types of movies or tv), so it’s easier for them to be ignored.

    I also think you shouldn’t underestimate the effect of globalization here. Things like Superman renouncing his U.S. citizenship are less about the anti-Americanism of comic book writers than they are the need to appeal to a non-American readership, and the same is true for movies and (to a lesser extent) tv as well. The typical non-American movie viewer is probably to the left of the typical American one, which is going to skew consumer preferences when it comes to politics.

    Finally, I think it’s possible that certain political views are just easier to portray on screen than others. It’s easy to show the hardships involved in cutting spending on government programs, for example, while showing the supply side effects of cutting taxes (assuming there are any) is more difficult.

  • Darwin,

    That’s a fair answer. I appreciate it.

    Personally, I would not sit on the board of a hospital that did elective abortions (unless maybe my service would result in a change of policy). But on the other hand, I support the new health care law. Some of my friends would do the reverse in both situations. They are still my friends and people who I disagree with but do not disrespect.

  • Angie Harmon didn’t stay long. A subsequent Christian ADA was murdered after less than a year. Fred Thompson didn’t stay too long due to Presidential ambitions

    Harmon was on the show for four years, Thompson for five. In any event, I didn’t list all the conservative characters on the show, just a representative sampling (you note, for example, that Annie Parisse’s character was also a conservative Catholic).

  • Blackader said, “There are some conservatives who are really adverse to watching a movie or tv show with a liberal message, but this type of person is less likely to watch movies or tv to begin with (or at least is less likely to watch certain types of movies or tv), so it’s easier for them to be ignored.”

    Nice to know I am being ignored. TV is full of liberal drivel, sexual immorality and all manner of other nonsense. I can’t be bothered to fill my head with such godlessness. And no, godlessness does NOT constitute good acting or good stories. It’s godless, after all.

    It’s also interesting to note that liberal “Catholics” feel the same way about EWTN. No surprise there.

  • Donald,
    I have to admit, you make it very difficult to maintain even a semblance of Christian charity. Your responses are like those that so many conservatives claim to hate when they come from liberals, dripping with a sense of smug superiority. However, since you seem to think that conservatism is based on clear thinking and only liberals are subject to living in a fantasy world, I can point out several fantasies that conservatives have embraced.

    1. Any conservative who believes that we can cut government debt without raising taxes (especially by cutting taxes on the rich), is just deluding themselves about what the American public really wants. Yes, they want to cut the debt, but they don’t want to loose any of their Social Security or Medicare; and if those can’t be cut (as well as defense), then trying to balance the budget at our current tax rates is like trying to keep the titanic sinking with a bucket.

    2. The notion that free-markets are the solution to the end of all economic ills. With all due respect to Adam Smith, many men don’t act with enlightened self interest. While some will act with enlightened self interest, others will cravenly do anything to maximize their short term self interest and ignore the long term consequences, both to themselves and others. Surely the existence of guys like Bernie Madoff prove that.

    3. An belief by many in the conservative movement that the ends justify the means.

    4. Your own apparent belief that because the segregationists in the south were not Republicans that they were not conservatives (I guess they must have become conservative when they switched to the Republican party in the 1970s and 1980s? — Though in fairness to them, many of them had left segregationist ideas behind them after the 1960s)

    5. The belief by conservatives (shared by liberals) that whenever they win an election, it means they have a mandate from the people to run the government along purely ideological lines when in fact most Americans want things run by consensus.

    I could go on. But I will finish by stating, that no, I don’t think Chesterton is somehow infallible, nor do I believe that that the politics of early 20th century England are the same as 21st century America. What I do believe, however, is that all forms of liberalism and conservatism do not properly take into account man’s fallen nature and to make allowances for it. Chesterton recognized that, most modern liberals and conservatives (even those of the Catholic variety) don’t.

  • Your own apparent belief that because the segregationists in the south were not Republicans that they were not conservatives (I guess they must have become conservative when they switched to the Republican party in the 1970s and 1980s? —

    I think Southern members of Congress largely accepted the New Deal. We can check the tabulations on the key legislation.

    Clare Boothe Luce rejected segregation. What political label most precisely describes her? How about Pres. Eisenhower? Everett Dirksen?

    Other than Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin, I think it would be difficult to find many quondam segregationists among working public officials who later made careers in the Republican Party, (and both Godwin and Thurmond gave up on segregation after about 1970). Every Southern Senator (bar two – Thurmond and John Tower) who cast a vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concluded his political career as a Democrat.

    You could rummage around the records of state legislators and local councillors later elected to higher office. Trent Lott might also be an example, but he was not a public figure prior to 1972.

  • “I have to admit, you make it very difficult to maintain even a semblance of Christian charity.”

    I haven’t noticed you making any heroic effort along those lines Maryland Bill.

    “Any conservative who believes that we can cut government debt without raising taxes (especially by cutting taxes on the rich), is just deluding themselves about what the American public really wants.”

    Anyone who thinks that we can get out of debt by raising taxes is obviously ignorant of just how much revenue can be raised from increasing taxes, the negative impact of the tax increases on the economy, the fact that government since circa 1965 has not used increased revenue for reducing debt but rather as a spur to increasing spending, and the fact that the problem is not too little revenue to government but rather too much government spending.

    “The notion that free-markets are the solution to the end of all economic ills.”

    Only the solution to the problem of having a prosperous economy as opposed to an economy that is stagnant or worse.

    “An belief by many in the conservative movement that the ends justify the means.”

    Rubbish as indicated by the fact that you give no examples.

    “Your own apparent belief that because the segregationists in the south were not Republicans that they were not conservatives”

    Actually most of them were New Deal liberals on economic matters. For examples check out George Wallace, Orville Faubus and Lester Maddox.

    “The belief by conservatives (shared by liberals) that whenever they win an election, it means they have a mandate from the people to run the government along purely ideological lines when in fact most Americans want things run by consensus.”

    Oh the fallacy of the yellow line in the middle of the road as the path to good government. Most Americans want successful government and problems solved. If a politician can do that, Reagan for example, they will follow him. If a politician can’t, Obama is thus far on that path, they won’t. The idea that consensus has ever produced much of use in American history is simply false. The Constitution was hotly contested, as was the development of internal improvements by the Federal government, the abolition of slavery, the buildup of defense prior to World War II, Reagan’s policy of increasing defense spending that helped end the Cold War, etc. American history is replete with intense political fights where one side wins and enacts its program. Sometimes the program succeeds and sometimes it fails, but consensus has rarely played a decisive role in resolving hotly contested issues in American history.

  • “There are some conservatives who are really adverse to watching a movie or tv show with a liberal message, but this type of person is less likely to watch movies or tv to begin with (or at least is less likely to watch certain types of movies or tv), so it’s easier for them to be ignored.”

    Considering that conservatives are 40% of the population BA that is a large part of the market to ignore. I suspect that the vast majority of conservatives do not enjoy having a liberal political message slammed down their throats while they are watching a film. The tanking of every anti-war film in regard to the War on Terror might indicate that your analysis is perhaps shaky. In stark contrast we have the success of 300, which Frank Miller used as a metaphor for the War on Terror.

    http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/04/29/frank-miller-of-300-and-sin-city-fame-knows-the-war-on-terror-is-real/

    Then we have the huge success of The Passion of the Christ, and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and the lesser, although still impressive, success of the Narnia films. There is a huge and obvious hunger for quality conservative themed films, a hunger mostly unmet by Hollywood for largely ideological reasons.

  • Well, 20 percent of we the people admit to being liberal.

    That means 80 percent of us merit calumny, detraction and personal destruction.

    Sen. Rand Paul is slipping off the evil end in confronting unions (100 approved by CST!!).

    Here is what Sen. Paul wants to confront.

    “A result of back-room deals between union bosses and their tax-and-spend Congressional puppets, compulsory unionism provisions in federal law currently empower union officials to:

    >>>Force nearly 11 million Americans to pay tribute to a union boss to get or keep a job …

    >>>Brazenly loot union treasuries to fund the election of their hand-picked political puppet candidates like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid …

    >>>Terrorize workers and communities with violent strikes — where they get away with beatings, arson — even murder.”

  • Well said, T Shaw. Well said!

  • I agree with Alice – well said, T. Shaw.

    I just don’t understand liberal fantasies at all. It’s as though they are from a different planet.

  • BA,

    On the consumer side, my guess is that when it comes down to it, conservatives simply care less about having contrary political views espoused by films and tv shows they watch than do liberals.

    That’s an interesting point.

    Other things to consider are:

    – The bias in fiction TV is often around the sorts of situations or characters that show up, they’re not obvious propaganda, so there’s a certain portion of the population which probably isn’t political enough to notice the bias regardless of their opinions. If I had to guess, it’s probably only about 10% on the right and 10% on the left who notice, while 80% of the population may really not notice that most fiction TV has much political content at all.

    – The segment of the population which watches the most TV (young people and single people) is also the most liberal according to all political polls. So it probably makes sense that entertainments slants towards their interests. Frankly, even if there was some amazing conservatively leaning drama out there, I wouldn’t have the time to watch it. Whereas a lot of people in their teens and early 20s can keep up with multiple series and go see a movie every week.

    Kurt,

    I would probably agree with you about the hospital board scenario, but I can see how people end up taking different stands on these kind of issues. For instance, I could imagine that a good Catholic sitting on the board of a major insurer like Kaiser or Humana would do a lot more good by bringing a conscience to doing that work than by refusing because those kind of insurers do provide a (fairly small, compared to dedicated abortion facilities) number of abortions each year.

    Also, to be honest, a lot of people who may not have it occur to them right off that the hospital which does so much good work is also involved in that kind of work.

  • There are not nearly as many conservative ideas that fall into the realm of fantasy as there are liberal ideas, but there are a few that I would place into that category:

    the notion that ALL fiscal problems, no matter how dire, can always be solved purely by budget cuts or eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse”

    the notion that all illegal immigrants, regardless of circumstances, are by definition “criminals” (illegal immigration is a civil violation, NOT a federal or state crime for which one can be placed on trial or go to jail);

    the notion that society can be cleanly divided into longsuffering, hardworking taxpayers on one side and greedy, bloodsucking “tax eaters” on the other and never the twain shall meet. I agree it’s not a good thing for people to be overly dependent on government, but to pretend that it’s possible to have absolute zero “dependence” on government is fantasy in my opinion. Everyone pays SOME kind of taxes, either directly or indirectly, and everyone receives some kind of benefit from government even if not directly in the form of a check;

    and finally, the notion that any work outside the for-profit private sector is inherently unproductive, useless and a mere drain on the economy.

    Each of these ideas has some merit, but conservatives who believe these approaches are 100 percent effective at all times, or applicable in all circumstances no matter what, veer away from reality in my opinion.

  • Perhaps Elaine Krewer has not had interface with either North Carolina DMV or the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to see at first hand how citizens of what was once a Christian Constitutional Republic are now treated as subjects of a liberal atheist socialist demokracy.

    Over the past month or so since moving to Charlotte, I have had to visit DMV about seven times to finally get my NC license and my vehicle registered. I won’t bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that every time I went, the administrative specialist at the desk would stop at the first thing he found wrong, tell me to get that fixed, and dismiss me. He wouldn’t tell me everything I had to do. Indeed, when I got that one thing fixed and revisited the office, the administrative specialist would find something else wrong and send me away to bring another rock. Finally I succeeded in getting all my t’s crossed and i’s dotted – that was earlier this morning. I was so overjoyed that I went to shake the administrative specialist’s hand. He looked at me and at my hand, and then cast his eyes down to his desk. But some people want us to think that government workers aren’t like that. Personal experience says otherwise. Indeed, anytime a person gets a government position, that feeling of superiority and “governance” comes into play, and soveriegn citizens who actually work for a living and produce real wealth are the ones to suffer.

    I have seen the exact same thing in my professional life as a nuclear engineer. I have been involved in submitting paperwork to the US NRC (the federal regulator for commercial nuclear power plants) and more often than not the regulator is more concerned with document headers and footers, and outline formatting than with technical substance. The delays that are caused by moving outline numbering on a document a quarter inch just to satisfy an NRC Request for Additional Information amounts to billions of dollars in cost overruns that every one of you end up paying in electric billing. And I am told that it’s worse with the EPA which regulates emission controls on coal fired power plants. But this is the kind of obstructionism that Elaine apparently wants.

    Dr. Pournelle describes this as the Iron Law of Bureaucracy: “…in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”

    Liberalism has had its day. It will implode itself under the weight of its own bureaucracy with the support and adulation of liberal Demokrats.

    BTW, unless you’re a nuclear engineer with 30+ years of training and experience, don’t use Japan as an example of why we should de-nuke ourselves. You don’t know the details and I don’t have space in here to educate you to the level you would need to understand the details. Suffice it to say that upgrades that we did to US GE BWR-3 and 4s with Mark I Containments would have mitigated if not prevented the sad events at Fukushima Daiichi, but the Japanese did NOT implement those upgrades, so when an Act of Nature occurred, the inevitable happened. I won’t bother to mention the collusion between the Japanese government regulator and the industry that was complicit in all this, but that’s what happens when the State is involved.

  • Kurt,

    I would probably agree with you about the hospital board scenario, but I can see how people end up taking different stands on these kind of issues.

    Me too. That’s why I spoke personally and not as an universal obligation.

    BTW, on the issue of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the simple truth is that it would have been widely understood at the time where one stood on these proposals if one said the “conservative position” and the “liberal position.” William F. Buckley and Senator Goldwater were on one side and Hubert Humphrey and Walter Reuther were on the other side.

    The conservative movement today has moved away from those positions and most living conservatives today are too young to ever have been part of the conservative movement when they embraced these views.

    Of course, at the same time liberals led the fight for the civil rights, we also largely believed the phone company should be nationalized and everyone have a black, desktop phone. Today’s liberals accept that history has shown that we were right on civil rights and wrong on the phone company.

    Lastly, I should give a hat tip to my neo-conservative friends who have no conservative baggage on civil rights issues: Jeanne Kilpatrick, Richard John Neuhaus, Irving Kristol, Ben Wattenberg, Norman Podhoretz, and Michael Novak. My shared past with them has always made their current views seem friendlier, even when we disagree.

  • William F. Buckley and Senator Goldwater were on one side and Hubert Humphrey and Walter Reuther were on the other side.

    Everett Dirksen and Clare Boothe Luce were on one side and Albert Gore, Sr. and Orville Faubus were on the other.

  • The conservative movement today has moved away from those positions and most living conservatives today are too young to ever have been part of the conservative movement when they embraced these views.

    That is just an anachronism, Kurt. Differences in the assessment of segregation were regional and subcultural. (Re the assessment of the propriety of federal legislation regulating petty commercial transactions, landlord-tenant transactions, &c – the differences were driven by social philosophy).

  • Of course, at the same time liberals led the fight for the civil rights, we also largely believed the phone company should be nationalized and everyone have a black, desktop phone. Today’s liberals accept that history has shown that we were right on civil rights and wrong on the phone company.

    I do not recall anyone of consequence arguing AT & T should be nationalized. Robert Kuttner thought it should remain a regulated monopoly but one debarred from manufacturing and trading in hardware, but that was ca. 1982, when the dissolution of the Bell System was all but a done deal.

    There is a difference between a critique of segregation and being ‘right on civil rights’.

  • Clare Boothe Luce…

    When she wasn’t snorting cocaine! :0

  • The only piece of civil rights legislation ever opposed by Goldwater was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Goldwater, due to his pro-abort position which he did his best to hide while he was in public life, long ago ceased to be a hero of mine, but simple justice warrants a correct statement of the record.
    In regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 80% of House Republicans supported it as opposed to 63% of Democrats, and in the Senate 82% of Republicans supported it as opposed to 69% of Democrats. Civil Rights legislation passed in the Sixties because Democrats changed their mind as a party on Civil Rights for blacks. Republican party platforms since the Civil War had supported Civil Rights for blacks year after year with Republican bills being bottled up by the Senate due to Democrat filibusters.

    A typical Republican platform. This one was from 1924, when the Ku Klux Klan was a rising power in the land:

    “The Negro
    We urge the congress to enact at the earliest possible date a federal anti-lynching law so that the full influence of the federal government may be wielded to exterminate this hideous crime. We believe that much of the misunderstanding which now exists can be eliminated by humane and sympathetic study of its causes. The president has recommended the creation of a commission for the investigation of social and economic conditions and the promotion of mutual understanding and confidence.”

    Here is a plank from the Republican Party Platform of 1944:

    “Racial and Religious Intolerance
    We unreservedly condemn the injection into American life of appeals to racial or religious prejudice.

    We pledge an immediate Congressional inquiry to ascertain the extent to which mistreatment, segregation and discrimination against Negroes who are in our armed forces are impairing morale and efficiency, and the adoption of corrective legislation.

    We pledge the establishment by Federal legislation of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission.”

  • Kurt,
    Regarding CBL, I think you mean LSD.

    http://www.psychoactive.org.uk/LSD/intro.htm

    During the 1950s LSD was legal and considered potentially therapeutic by many in the medical field, some of whom enjoyed the drug recreationally with the jet set crowd. While rather silly and potentially dangerous, it is doubtful that this use related to her support for civil rights.

    I do think that their is some truth to the assertion that self-identified conservatives were not as enthusiastic about civil rights as self-identified liberals, on the whole. That said, context and vocabulary matters. For instance, during that era (and in some respects similar to today) there was a conflation between populism and conservativism insomuch as many self-identified conservatives actually were not very conservative in any objective sense. That said, the fact that the highly intelligent and principled WFB Jr. opposed civil rights legislation is revealing. Conservatives on the whole are suspicious of change, especially change they perceive as forced rather than organic. As a conservative I see this as a healthy presumption, but a rebuttable one. IMO we failed to rebut that impulse satisfactorily in connection with the civil rights movement that emerged after WWII. That said, I am very much speaking in generalities, and stereotyping either conservatives or Republicans of that era on civil rights is perilous. As Don points out, on the whole the Republicans were more conservative than the Democrats ever since the early 1930s (at least), and yet were also more progressive on civil rights. History is complicated.

  • What were we talking abo . . .

    In today’s news: Union thugs and MoveOn.org goons crash tea party rally in New York screaming at patriots.

    Precedent Obama ignores TX requests for fire aid, flies in to collect campaign cash.

    Fist Lady Michelle Antoinette will fete rapper who rants about killing police officers and immolating President Bush.

    Gangstas rule!

  • Might the Madison Ave-Hollywood Blvd-Wall St axis of evil be intentionally pumping out liberal fantasy in order to manage the thinking of the masses? Could we be falling for the false left-right paradigm as part of psychological warfare being waged by the forces of evil in ‘pop culture’?

    I see the word ‘conservative’ bandied about, yet I am not so sure we all have the same definition. When Chesterton used the word, he meant something quite different than what we call ‘conservative’ in America today. Keep in mind that the Founding Fathers, who by all accounts would be considered ‘conservative’ today, were in fact liberals in the 1780s.

    I also notice ‘conservative’ and Republican being used interchangeably. This is a major error. The Republican Party today is far more broad. You have the establishment RINOs who are more or less Democrats, the libertarians like both Pauls, so-called social conservatives, strict constructionist Constitutionalists, neo-cons who are warmongering Progressives, and a smattering of other minor groups. What unites most of these people? The simple fact that the Democrats are anti-American, materialist, relativist morons.

    So the fact is that Republicans do suck because they are politicians and since The Prince, politics is a very ugly game. However, the Democrats not only suck – they are evil to boot. Most thinking persons side with the Republicans simply because the Democrats represent the rapid destruction of the Republic and the Republicans are slow enough to give us time to prevent the inevitable demise.

    Nevertheless, I am still curious what most commentators mean when they say ‘conservative’ – of course, that is another question for another post.

  • Paul, where did I ever say I was in favor of any type of “obstructionism”? You ran into some government employees that did not serve you well and gave you the runaround. I have too, many times, and just about every day. I have also run into many private sector employees who do the same. I think the “iron law” also applies in the private sector, as does the “Peter Principle” of people rising to the level of their incompetence.

    Full disclosure here: I am a state employee myself, and was a private sector employee for 20 years previously. I try very hard NEVER to treat anyone dismissively or arrogantly, and if someone asks a question I try to get them the answer right away. If I don’t know the answer, I try to point them in the right direction to find the answer. If someone calls to ask a question, often they will say “Sorry to bother you” or “Hope I’m not taking up too much of your time,” to which I say “No problem — I’m here to be ‘bothered’!” I will probably never be an agency head, that is true, but that isn’t my bag anyway.

    The “conservative fantasy” that I was referring to was not the GENERAL idea that government should be smaller. It is the notion that NO job outside of the for-profit private sector or the military (or possibly law enforcement) is a “real” or “productive” job and that EVERY government or non-profit position is unnecessary and could be, or ought to be, eliminated.

    Many conservative ideas are good and I agree with them. But some of them veer off into the realm of utopianism or fantasy when they are treated as absolute, 100 percent foolproof panaceas or assumed to be workable in all circumstances.

  • Thanks for the response, Elaine. I find much to agree with in it. But overall, my experience has been that any time govt gets as big and as powerful as ours is, it’s high time to start neutering it by stemming the flow of cash, borrowed or taxed.

    I am going to give two examples of govt screwups with perhaps the best govt agency I have ever worked with and that’s the US NRC. If the NRC is this screwed up, then how screwed up are the rest? Another thing to remember: none of the govt flunkies that run these agencies are voted on. They are political appointees beholden to no one but the appointer.

    Now a certain Dr. Gary Kao was a physician for the Veterans Admin in Philly. He was in charge of using radioactive sources for patent treatment. His story may be read here:

    http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1034/ML103410390.pdf

    From 2002 to 2008 this physician employed by the govt was responsible for the mis-administration of radioactive sources in 91 of 97 VA medical events involving radiation during that time period. NO ONE did anything until the VA decided to do a Health Physics inspection at the end of the time period. And the NRC itself failed to do anything after the second, third, fourth, etc. event. This went on for SIX years and I even found a report (can’t locate right now) where that doctor dropped a radioactive source on a patent’s behind. Finally after six years and 91 mistakes, the NRC decides to bar him from using radioactive sources. BTW, where’s the American Medical Association in all this? And why is that guy STILL a physician?

    Here is another example of our great govt at work. In 2002 during a refueling outage at the Davis Besse nuclear power plant owned and operated by First Energy, a through-wall hole the size of a football was found in the six inch low allow carbon steel reactor vessel wall. The only thing holding back the fires of creation from exploding into containment was a quarter inch of the inconel inner liner for the reactor pressure vessel. You can read about that here:

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0353/br0353r1.pdf

    You might say that it’s great the NRC caught them and shame on free enterprise greed that shortened refueling outages by bypassing needful inspections of the RPV penetrations for the Control Rod Drive Mechanisms. But what you do NOT know is that this nuclear power pliant repeatedly petitioned the NRC during the late 90s to forego the RPV head inspections and the NRC granted the exemption request – I guess management at the plant got the headers and footers on the document submittal right.

    Holy crap! Think about this: if that quarter inch of inconel had let loose, multiple control rods would have been ejected from the reactor under a pressure of 2235 psig. That’s over one ton per square inch for those out there who don’t know science and engineering. A positive reactivity addition accident would have occurred, the reactor might well have gone prompt critical, and the core would have been destroyed well before the Reactor Protection and Engineering Safeguards Systems could have responded. But by golly, the document headers and footers were right!

    Yes, when I think about these kinds of things, I get excited. And I get angry. And this is the BEST govt agency. Doctors overdosing patients for years before it does anything. And some plants getting deferments in inspections who shouldn’t while other plants get needlessly hammered on ungrounded fears and sensationalist hype from dope smoking anti-nuclear hippie dropouts from the 60s.

    The best govt is a limited govt whose sole job is the common defense, and public safety. BTW, if you think the NRC is bad, then what about the Dept of Minerals and Resources that allowed BP its exemptions on Deep Water Horizons?

    When we as a society reject God as our King, then we get govt as our God and people die.

    One last thing: in case you ask, I teach on both of the events I described about – Dr. Kao and Davis Besse – in my new job. I use these as operating experience for my students. These are what NOT to do. And my students – one and all – are flabbergasted that events like these happened, but they do because people put their faith in govt instead of in God. And sadly, I can’t teach the integrity and honesty that’s required to prevent events like these from happening in the first place. And that’s what it all boils down to. You can’t instill integrity and honesty by govt regulation. Period.

  • Mike writes:

    Kurt,
    Regarding CBL, I think you mean LSD.

    Yes, thank you.

    I do think that their is some truth to the assertion that self-identified conservatives were not as enthusiastic about civil rights as self-identified liberals, …. That said, the fact that the highly intelligent and principled WFB Jr. opposed civil rights legislation is revealing. Conservatives on the whole are suspicious of change, especially change they perceive as forced rather than organic. As a conservative I see this as a healthy presumption, but a rebuttable one. IMO we failed to rebut that impulse satisfactorily in connection with the civil rights movement that emerged after WWII. …History is complicated.

    I see the point of that explanation of the politics of the time. Thank you.

    Again, the importance of civil rights issues to liberals like myself is largely why I feel a good rapport with my neo-con friends like Irving Kristol, Jeanne Kilpatrick and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Their liberalism early in their life, particularly on civil rights issues, makes their late in life conservativism more interesting.

    Some make the same observation about our Holy Father, clearly no conservative for the first half of his life from his youthful opposition to Right-Wing totalitarianism to his mid-life role at the Council.

  • What will Catholics eat on Fridays?

    From Drudge: Commercial fishermen say Federal regulations destroying the industry; causing suicide attempts.

    PS: Rand Paul is the most interesting man in the Senate. That tells more about the senate than about Mr. Paul.

  • Kurt, So!!!

    Conservatives support “Right-Wing Totalitarianism”!!!

    No need to waste any more energy click clacking.

    Simply copy and paste: “Liberals are infallibly blessed. Conservatives are worse than Hitler.”

    I had stopped reading (lips became exhausted) the detractions, karacter assassinations, non sequiturs, anyhow. Also, bruised forehead started bleeding . . .

  • “Conservatives support ‘Right-Wing Totalitarianism’!!!”

    So what exactly is the unlimited govt regulation adored by the liberals called where non-elected civil servants can let a govt doctor mis-expose patients to radioactive sources 91 times over six years, but stymie any free market expansion in building passively safe Generation III+ reactors?

    I think we’ll find out as gas prices go through the roof and we start choking on coal dust fumes. We’ll need more of those sources for cancer therapy. Maybe by that time the govt agency in charge can ensure that certain doctors get properly trained.

    Totalitarianism indeed! When at a commercial nuclear power plant it’s almost to the point where I can’t even visit the bathroom without the security access computer recording where I’m at, but liberals just luuuuuvvvvvv those regulations!

    When you don’t have faith in God and don’t place primacy on holiness and righteousness which alone engender integrity and honesty, then you have to have an unlimited govt. And that is the hallmark and essence of liberalism.

    Yup, bread and circuses for the undeserving while those who produce real wealth are ground into the dust.
    Let’s hope no one has Doctor Gary Kao as his physician!

  • t Shaw, my friend, remind me of the name of the political party of the guy with the thin, little umbrella?

  • Paul Primavera, institutions run by human beings make errors or act with venality and you can spin narratives about them for days. Countrywide Financial was not a public enterprise. Three questions: in the circumstance in question, is it systemically worse in the public sector than in the private sector; is the function performed by the public sector replicable by the private sector; can there be improvement in performance by the public agency in question? I suspect you would find that, as a rule, the answers are as follows:

    1. Generally true.

    2. Postal delivery, yes. Policing and regulation, no.

    3. Yes. (In the case of the Department of Motor Vehicles and implementing county clerk’s offices here in New York, there has been dramatic improvement over the last 30 years. Transferring a title or renewing your license is quite pleasant compared to what it was thirty years ago).

  • Art Deco,

    I’m sure you’re right. But that’s small consolation to the 91 patients that Dr. Gary Kao mis-dosed with radiation at the Veterans Administration, and small consolation to the electric rate payers of Ohio who inevitably ended up footing the two billion dollar bill for First Energy’s degraded RPV head fiasco that the US NRC was complicit in. And those are only TWO examples – I have tons more as I am sure you do, too.

    And yes, I do wish that North Carolina would learn something from NYS DMV. I am amazed that I actually have to say something positive about the State that I left in 2007, but there you have it. Sometimes govt can improve (yet it’s an all too rare phenomenon). You will see more incentive for improvement in the free market simply because there is monetary incentive. In most cases the govt flunky gets paid no matter what.

  • Kurt,

    That was weak. Having a good rapport with neocons is obvious for a self-described liberal because both ideologies stem from the Left. Limiting civil rights to merely the scope of discrimination against blacks really misses the whole point of civil rights, which is why the so-called civil rights champions actually promote racism, class warfare and division. So your assertion that ‘conservatives’ are going to avoid it is foolish. You are a victim of the liberal fantasy referred to above.

    If one is authentically conservative (not to used interchangeably with Republicans) then one is obligated to adhere to and conform to the eternal laws. Catholicism is inherently conservative and yet it is also progressive, but not in the sense that Progressivism is. Modern liberalism is Progressivism as is neo-conservatism. Both ideologies are statist and un-American.

    This may be difficult for you to understand in your current paradigm because you seem to think that conservatism is from the right and that the right is fascist. This is an error. The right is less government and the extreme right is no government. Fascism is a lot of government and a sick hybrid of political interest and private ownership each seeking to protect the other from the forces of freedom and the people’s rights. That puts fascism (which you convolute with conservatism) on the left. It is an especially violent form of corporatism because it is nationalistic and jingoistic in nature. This is why Nazism appeals to jihadists. Authentic conservatism coming from the right, just short of anarchy, is the respect of the individual, the family and the community and does not put one against the other. It respects life, private property and freedom of conscience. Conservatism has little need for civil rights because very few of the natural rights of the individual are given to the state in the fist place.

    Authentic conservatism also respects subsidiarity. True conservatism is very, very Catholic and promotes the proper conquest of this present darkness and the establishment of true social justice. Modern liberalism couches itself in Catholic social justice language, yet is inherently anti-Catholic. You have fallen for one of the devil’s most subtle snares.

    Before you take this as a personal attack, stop to consider it as an opportunity to examine your current views and seek to understand why God is challenging you on this blog in this way.

  • But that’s small consolation to the 91 patients that Dr. Gary Kao mis-dosed with radiation at the Veterans Administration

    I understand. I knew a woman whose ability to look after herself was ruined by iatrogenic peripheral neruopathy, which she acquired through an excessively long course of an antibiotic, which course was excessively long because her physician mistook alternating bouts of infectious colitis and ulcerative colitis for one long bout of infectious colitis. (And she acquired the infectious colitis from excess use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which knocked out the normal flora in her colon). The physician who prescribed these antibiotics is not and was not employed by the Veterans’ Administration. She has her own practice.

    t Shaw, my friend, remind me of the name of the political party of the guy with the thin, little umbrella?

    Come again? I own a thin little umbrella.

  • Come again? I own a thin little umbrella.

    So did Burgess Meredith. Perhaps the idea is that the Democrat Party is run like the Penguin’s criminal syndicate. I guess that makes John Boehner Bruce Wayne.

  • “t Shaw, my friend, remind me of the name of the political party of the guy with the thin, little umbrella?”

    It’s NOT going to rain!?!?!?!?

    I forgot my umbrella!!

    No, wait!

    Liberals are infallibly blessed. I am worse than Hitler.

  • … the so-called civil rights champions actually promote racism…

    I think we are back where we started. On the matter of the so-called civil rights movement, you had conservatives like WFB, Goldwater, etc. generally on one side and liberals like Dr. King, Walter Reuther, Whitney Young, Clarence Mitchell, Hubert H. Humphrey, and George Meany taking the other positon. The merits of the two sides we can debate, but there seems little doubt there was a conservative side and a liberal side on this policy question. Thank you for helping to clarify this.

  • No wait!

    I just looked out the window. There’s not a cloud. Whew!!!

    Charlie Chaplin carried a cane not a thin, little umbrella.

    Was it Huey Long?

    What was the question??

    Oh, what political potty . . .

  • “… the so-called civil rights champions actually promote racism…”

    Not in 1964. In 2011, yes. Plus, class envy/hatred, lawlessness, and racketeering, too.

    Start with the Osama rhyming demagogue living at 1600 Pensylvania Avenue . . .

  • Has the Fist Lady disinvited to 1600 PA Ave. that artiste who makes his bones jammering about killing police officers and immolating President Bush?

    That common dud also (as did Osama and Michelle) spent his life getting religion from Jeremiah (I hate whitey) Wright.

    Here goes nuffin’:

    “Trialdog” commented at “Gateway Pundit”:
    “I’m making a list of everyone to hate and I might have missed one. Let’s see. Obama is my choice for President because:
    I should hate ‘the rich.’
    I should hate ‘the conservatives.’
    I should hate ‘people who want a secure border.’
    I should hate ‘big oil.’
    I should hate ‘big pharma.’
    I should hate ‘banks.’
    I should hate ‘anti-choice people.’
    I should hate ‘people who drive SUVs.’
    I should hate ‘republicans.’
    Once I sufficiently hate all these people, then Obama can save me from the hate by attacking the hate until I am enlightened.
    “Thank God for Obama! He brings us all together!!”

    Now, got to go to a wake. For a relative whom Common, Michele, Osama, and Wright would all agree is a now a “good white man.”

  • I am not sure why Neville Chamberlain’s maladroit exercise in diplomacy driven by reasons of state qualifies him as a fascist sympathiser. (One might also note that his French counterpart Edouard Daladier was not a quondam royalist but a member of the Radical Party, the home of bourgeois adherents to the Revolution’s laicite. So was Pierre Laval).

  • He was not. Neville Chamberlain was a weak fool in reference to standing up to Hitler, but he had no sympathy for fascism. Here is his radio address after war commenced between the British Empire and Nazi Germany.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtrOJnpmz6s

    Churchill of course, the British Bull Dog incarnate, was also a Conservative, after a youthful sojourn with the Liberals.

  • He was not. Neville Chamberlain was a weak fool in reference to standing up to Hitler, but he had no sympathy for fascism

    Very true.

How Not to Be Accused of Being Islamophobic!

Friday, April 29, AD 2011

Right you are Klavan on the Culture!  Principles are all well and good, until upholding them places us in physical danger.  Then the only reasonable reaction is to make endless excuses for those who view murder as a means of debate, and to exercise canine like eagerness to capitulate to their demands.  Comdey Central, which finds much humor in spitting upon Christianity, capitulated quite quickly when the sensibilities of muslims was offended, right after they began receiving death threats from some adherents of the religion of peace.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

20 Responses to How Not to Be Accused of Being Islamophobic!

  • Quite on target to say the least.
    It should be clear to us by now that the obvious results of capitulation and compromising in the face of a religious culture that willfully uses the sword to protect its philosophy or advance its theology among those within Judeo-Christianity are and will be the same as the going along to get along with progressive liberals by freedom loving conservatives within politics. At some point the insanity and intellectual suicide must stop.

  • Bill, Sr. Please read a book. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Akbar Ahmed, Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam (2010). Donald, while your post was an attempt at humor, perhaps you would do well to read it too.

    Here’s a review from Foreign Policy: http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/03/the_challenge_of_islam

    Of course, I suppose it is easier to blame “teh liberalz” for whatever you view as capitulation.

  • Linked below is Robert Spencer writing about a joint appearance he had with Akbar Ahmed on C-Span in 2006:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/08/akbar-ahmed-and-me.html

    I would highly recommend David that you put David Pryce-Jones The Closed Circle: an Interpretation of the Arabs on your reading list:

    http://www.amazon.com/Closed-Circle-Interpretation-Edward-Burlingame/dp/1566638267/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304208049&sr=1-1

    An excellent book for beginners in learning about the modern Arab world is David Lamb’s The Arabs:

    http://www.amazon.com/Arabs-David-Lamb/dp/1400030412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304208083&sr=1-1

  • What is humorous?

    Does it ease your anxiety to conclude “we had it coming to us” (like Rev. Jones in Detroit yesterday) in Feb 1993 and September 2001?

    We are overdue. Next one: I’m outta here.

  • Klavan is indeed correct. David W., please stop kidding yourself that the only reason people have a negative opinion of Islam is because they don’t read. On the contrary, some of us read all too well – in the decade since 9/11, I have read about Thai schoolgirls beheaded, many thousands of Christians killed in the Sudan, bombs exploding at Passover seders, Pakistani Catholics murdered while at church, “honor” killings of young women in Canada and England, etc. (I can go on). And ONE religion is at the heart of all that murder and it’s not Catholicism or Buddhism or 7th Day Adventism. Are there good and decent people who are Muslim? Yes, just as there are good and decent individuals who are atheists. However, just as I believe atheism adopted wholesale by humans would be disastrous and would result in a world resembling a charnel house more than a Utopia (and the historical evidence backs up my statement) , I think a world governed by Islam would be almost as cruel, ugly and bloody. Again, history backs me up. There is a reason why democracy and the whole concept of human rights developed in the Christian West and nowhere else, even if the secularists wish to pretend that all was darkness before the Enlightenment.

  • Donna V., thanks for clarifing our position along with a good dose of history past and present. Here’s my tribute to you and all women who are willing to (as a recent post here suggested) “fight like a girl”.

    In the beginning the superior “deceiver” wanted to unravel paradise but he also wanted to inflict as much damage as possible to God’s plan. His attack was aimed at the very “heart” of mankind, the woman. This is why, as a result, God spoke to him in no uncertain terms of the “woman” who would in time, with the Holy Spirits help, ultimately triumph over him and “crush his head with her heel”. Having heard this, instead of centuries of finger pointing submission, I think “the man” huddled back there in the corner of the garden, should have been cheering his head off for the “woman” God made perfectly for him. I suppose his ability to envision the promised confrontation and the role planned for her, was a stretch for him. It would be a while before he and the world would come to see and understand the foretold “triumphant” woman’s true capabilities.

  • Apropos to Bill, Sr., above.

    Today, is May 1. Here May is a lovely month dedicated to our lovely Blessed Mother.

    On this bright morning, I remember another bright May morning in 1957, as a first grader in procession in the courtyard of St. Eugene’s Chapel, Sacred Heart Parish the Bronx singing,

    “O Mary we crown thee with flowers today!
    Queen of the Angels! Queen of the May!”

    I desire greater love for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  • Of course, I suppose it is easier to blame “teh liberalz” for whatever you view as capitulation.

    Why not view Mr. Klavan’s video for some rough insights into why people might be inclined to blame “teh liberalz”? I will give you some hints:

    1. Reflexive denial of personal responsibility (in this case of Afghan tribesman);

    2. Reflexive assignment of culpability to those more proximate (in this case Terry Jones);

    3. Self-aggrandizement in the form of odd and perverse judgments (as explained by Fr. Neuhaus, “what is the point of intellectuals, but to tell us that things are not as ordinary people perceive them”).

    4. Self-aggrandizement in the implicit comparison of one’s enlightened self with the sort of rubes who are partisans of their own culture and who are such simpletons as to think that violent people are actually responsible for their violent acts.

    You people have been producing this sort of cultural white noise since around about 1962. It has gotten to be an utter bore. (And, yes, superciliously admonishing Bill Sr. to ‘read a book’ is part of the act.)

  • Thanks to T. Shaw, yes this is OUR mothers month let us in honor add..
    OUR Mother Mary…….yes, that Mary….
    ….who was Immaculately Conceived and living a simple life dedicated to serving the God of Israel from her very early childhood.
    …who was full of grace and said “yes” to the angel’s salutation to share a child with the Holy Spirit and carry our Lord in her womb for nine months that He might carry the Cross of Salvation for all of us.
    …who, in union with God’s plan, willfully in true charity and sacrifice accepted the prophecy, announced on her son’s first visit to the temple by Simeon, because of this child that her heart would be pierced like non before her.
    …who cared for and nourished that child sharing house, home, and daily family and personal exchanges of love and devotion with Him for thirty years as He grew to manhood.
    …whose mutual love had so entwined its trust in her young son that it would allow Him leave of her for nearly two days journey in their humble land (a preview of his passion and burial) until she would become aware of His absence from friends and her own loving care.
    …who, as His closest companion and confidant over many years, knew exactly where to look for Him upon her return to Jerusalem.
    …who would accept His decision to “be about His Fathers work” but with a mothers love guided His youthful ambitions to a more proper time and place for fulfillment where at her wish and petition He initiated His ministry with the miracle at the wedding feast of Cana.
    ,,,who faithful to words of God to Simeon had to watch with a bleeding heart the horrid brutality thrust upon her child during His powerful passion.
    …and finally that Mary, who though weeping in sorrow would be so willing to lovingly listened to and carry out her son’s dying request along side the disciple whom He loved well that she now take John under her wing in place of Him and that John in turn protect and defend her among men until she rejoined her son the Prince of Peace in heaven.
    This Mary, the world’s very first “Christian”, is my mother and should be recognized in faith as truly the mother of all Christians.

  • It has gotten to be an utter bore. (And, yes, superciliously admonishing Bill Sr. to ‘read a book’ is part of the act.)

    Well said. The assumed air of intellectual and moral superiority is telling. Mr. W, when you stop presuming those with different views will practice your form of goodthink once they grow up, you’ll be worth listening to. Until that happens, you’ll simply be a source of mild amusement.

  • Mr. Price et al. More of the usual from the conservative crowd.

    From taxes being seen as some sort of forcible taking to a rejection of CST to ignorance over the Church’s teachings on the common good to attempting to argue that “union” as historically supported by the Church are not our modern unions to Obama is “not an American” to lumping all Muslims together as “the other”, it’s quite clear that this website is not devoted to American Catholicism, but an American Conservative Catholicism steeped in ignorance both of the world but also of the Church’s teachings.

    On the Islam issue, I note that there is not one reference in the above or comments to what the Church said in Vatican II (Nostra aetate) or what the now blessed John Paul II said in a number of places.

    Upon further review, I don’t have the time to refute the tremendous ignorance and close-mindedness exhibited here. Therefore, goodbye.

    Again, I would urge you all to read more from authors who do not agree with you and be more open minded in your dealing with those who think differently from you. I’m guilty of this myself, but at the very least, I am aware of my fault and try to correct it.

    To the editors of this “publication”, I would suggest recruiting a greater of diversity of viewpoints if you really wish this to be for the “American Catholic”.

  • “Upon further review, I don’t have the time to refute the tremendous ignorance and close-mindedness exhibited here. Therefore, goodbye.”

    Life in an ideological echo chamber is a waste of time David. Judging from your abrupt retreat when your views are challenged, I suggest you could benefit from listening to conservative views and seeking to understand them rather than rejecting them out of hand. Whenever you wish to engage in real intellectual give and take, The American Catholic will be here.

  • Well, David W., since you did not refute even one point that I and other posters have made and your only purpose in visiting this site appears to be to insult others and behave like the santimonious Pharisee praying in the temple (“Thank you, Lord, that I am not like these others!”) rather than to debate in good faith, yes, I agree – you’re wasting your time here.

  • Art, et al above make (what we NRA Life Members/target shooters) call 10-X scores (dead center, pinwheel) on target.

    DavidW like all liberals, and 99% of the lying, liberal-demo-journalist complex/media, has no use for facts or truth that do not support the agenda, opinions, specuations or nightmares of how they wisht reality would be.

    And, books they suggest others read (whom the “write off” as ignorant b/c they won’t read) are replete with lies, unsupported opinions, utter revisionisms, and wild-eyed speculations.

    The motives for the lies are pure. The results are comprehensive ignorance and intellectual incompetence.

  • PS: Note from Ben Franklin for Obama-worshipping intellectuals: “Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.”

  • Again, I would urge you all to read more from authors who do not agree with you and be more open minded in your dealing with those who think differently from you. I’m guilty of this myself, but at the very least, I am aware of my fault and try to correct it.

    And you know I don’t do this because…what, I comment here? You have no idea what I read, yet you assume I need to read more. Stop digging–your hole is about to collapse. Given that I said nothing that could be construed to be “more of the usual of the conservative crowd,” I’m left with little but to regard your comments as an unusually difficult case of projection.

    Lord, that you would have at least a hint of insight into your worst fault….

    P.S.–it’s pride.

  • I don’t have the time to refute the tremendous ignorance and close-mindedness exhibited here.

    Translation: I live in an ideological bubble and am not used to having my views challenged. Having to defend my positions with logical arguments and persuasion is hard, therefore I am going to go away in a huff – but not before insulting everyone else here as my moral and intellectual inferior.

    Yeah, a real model of Christ you are.

  • “Upon further review, I don’t have the time to refute the tremendous ignorance and close-mindedness exhibited here. Therefore, goodbye.”

    Somehow I missed that in the fellow’s litany of self-regard. Now that’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.

    Donna–nice try, but his pride is impervious to the Pharisee analogy. No doubt he thinks in terms of Jesus not working miracles in Nazareth. The prophet without honor, etc.

  • Hey–greatness like DavidW’s should be honored in some way.

    How about you have a “DavidW Award” here at the blog? Issued periodically to a commenter whose top-flight arrogance suggests he has a history of shoulder dislocations from patting himself on the back?

  • Perhaps Dale, although there might be other commenters who might have a claim to have the award named after them. I will put it to our readers. Do any other commenters come to mind?

Bumper Sticker Police

Wednesday, April 13, AD 2011

 

Bravo Klavan on the culture!  I have never understood the burning desire of people to share their political philosophies with some driver behind them who might find their politics distasteful in the exteme, and has a gas pedal with which to express his disagreement.  As to your comments about the bumper sticker regarding war, here is a dissenting viewpoint:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

10 Responses to Bumper Sticker Police

  • Do you remeber what you were doing at 0846 hours (NY time) on 11 September 2001?

    One of them “war-never-solved-anyhthing” geniuses had this on his car: “9/11 Was An Inside Job.” My kid was deployed in Afghanistan at the time.

    I never see (Nassau/Queens, NY) any Obama stickers, any more.

    “Obama Never Solved Anything!”

  • I was in my office T.Shaw when the first reports came in on 9-11. I didn’t get much work done that day. I have never been more filled with rage in any 24 hour period before or since.

  • I was at a customer’s, back in the warehouse, when one of the employees said “a plane just hit one of the Twin Towers!” I thought he meant a commuter plane or one of those Piper Cubs. I popped into their conference room where they always had Headline News playing, and couldn’t believe my eyes. I was watching when the second plane struck.

    I didn’t get anymore work done that day either.

    Life in America was forever changed.

  • T. Shaw-
    I was in Navy bootcamp.
    Thus, we have military bumper stickers all over the back end of our minivan… and a “BEEF” one because it is for dinner!

    My first car has a “get in, set down, shut up and hold on” and a W sticker (but also had dragon decals all over), and our next minivan (when we finally save up for one) will have the military stickers, the beef one, and a “some days, the dragon wins” sticker.

    It’s hard to find anything worth saying that will fit on a bumper sticker…. that said, I’m still impressed at the pickup I saw once where the entire thing was a rolling memorial and celebration of the USMC.

  • How about this one from RealCatholicTV:

    “Barak Obama: Soft on terrorists, Hard on Fetuses”

  • I don’t like stickers, I also don’t like war. The former damages my car and cars, even used ones (especially after cash-for-clunkers) are too expensive. The latter is disliked by any civilized person, but it is and shall remain often necessary. When it is, it should be executed with extreme prejudice so that it ends quickly.

    I do like magnets. I place our country’s flag and the Gadsden flag on my car and it is always a good idea to place a pro-life one too. I doubt it will change anyone’s mind, but I take pleasure in the frustrated look of those crunchy granola wheat grass drinking types with that stupid purple ‘coexist’ sticker made up of syncretist and indifferent religious symbols, when they see my pro-life sign.

    Of course, I also often display an “END THE FED” magnet too.

    Happy 150th emancipation day Virginia!

  • I have only one bumper sticker and it has been on the car since early 1998. Once in California someone flipped me off when passing on a mountain road. My wife said it was probably the bumper sticker. It cost me a dollar. I bought it from the GOP. It is red with white lettering that says IT’S A CHILD, NOT A CHOICE.

  • T. Shaw: I was at a meeting with Family Medicine physicians and one came in toward the end of the meeting and said “Just to let you know, there are reports that 2 planes hit the WTC. One might be an accident, but I don’t know about 2.” I was still thinking along the lines of small commuter planes – until I walked back to my office and caught sight of the TV in the doctor’s lounge. I remember watching the second tower fall and wondering how many thousands of people had just died. Then I went back to my desk, in a daze, and a physician who was angry about something utterly trivial called and chewed me out for a while and I sat there and said, uh huh, uh huh, and then I finally broke in and said “Doctor, do you know what just happened in NY?” He hadn’t heard.

  • BTW, one bumper sticker I always found irritating was one I spotted quite a bit on the East Coast: “Einstein was a vegetarian.” It was the smug assumption of not only moral, but intellectual superiority that so annoyed me. “I am also a vegetarian, therefore I am like Einstein.” I was sorely tempted to write my own P.S. with magic marker: “Guess what? So was Hitler.”

    In my neighborhood, emblazoning my rear bumper with a sticker proclaiming a cause near to my heart would almost certainly result in my car getting keyed.

  • Donna the habit of saying that a famous figure also had some belief that had nothing to do with why they were famous has always struck me as very odd. That Einstein was a vegetarian has no more to do with his theories in physics than the fact that he was a philanderer.

    In regard to vegetarians, I have always like Sarah Palin’s quip. “There is room for all God’s creatures—right next to the gravy and mashed potatoes!”

9 Responses to Hollywood Celebrities: The Problem Minority

  • But…. But…. They understand (and heart!) Marx, right?

    The “benders” remind me of the average college kid. Main difference being no rare and infrequent all-nighters.

  • Leave myself open to flames, but somehow I think Sean Penn would be a more interesting dinner conversationalist than Pat Robertson.

  • If that were my choice Joe, I would much prefer dining alone with a good book at a White Castle!

  • “Leave myself open to flames, but somehow I think Sean Penn would be a more interesting dinner conversationalist than Pat Robertson.”

    So would Goering, but I think I would skip the meal.

  • Well, Don, of course, a third choice would have me at White Castle, but then I’d have to drive two days to find one. The frozen ones just don’t taste the same. Not to threadjack, but has anyone here read Anthony Trollope? Loved Barchester Chronicles (The Warden & Barchester Towers). The Church of England was never so funny.

  • “Well, Don, of course, a third choice would have me at White Castle, but then I’d have to drive two days to find one.”

    I pity you Joe for being so far away from sliders. Between bankruptcy hearings today I will be partaking of my daily quota of greasy food for lunch at a White Castle and reading a new book on guerilla warfare in the Civil War. Those type of moments make even the practice of law tolerable.

  • mmm . . . White Castle . . .

  • I didn’t even click on the clip of Sean (“I luv Hugo Chavez!”) Penn. Just seeing him, with rumpled shirt and the white man’s version of the Don King hairstyle, looking indistinguishable from characters I’ve seen sleeping on park benches, made me long for the days of Cary Grant.

  • Pingback: Images of Jesus Christ | andrew klavan | barack obama | Jesus Christ

Public Employee Unions Explained

Friday, March 11, AD 2011

 

Now, there is a good deal of evidence in favor of the opinion that many of these societies are in the hands of secret leaders, and are managed on principles ill-according with Christianity and the public well-being; and that they do their utmost to get within their grasp the whole field of labor, and force working men either to join them or to starve. Under these circumstances Christian working men must do one of two things: either join associations in which their religion will be exposed to peril, or form associations among themselves and unite their forces so as to shake off courageously the yoke of so unrighteous and intolerable an oppression. No one who does not wish to expose man’s chief good to extreme risk will for a moment hesitate to say that the second alternative should by all means be adopted.

Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

 

 

 

Klavan on the Culture, you are correct!  Public employee unions, by funding Democrats and providing election workers, effectively were able largely to write their own compensation packages, taxpayer be hanged.  It was a decades long merry party at the expense of the public, and many states are on the verge of bankruptcy as a result.  The battle over public employee unions is just the opening round in a huge political fight across the nation as the states, which are unable to simply print money as the federal government does, desperately grapple with looming fiscal insolvency.  Change is coming as change often does:  brought about by onrushing reality.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

8 Responses to Public Employee Unions Explained

  • Spot on! Collective bargaining is not a right. If it actually was, why is it the case that every person in this country is not obligated to be a member of a union in order have the “right” to collectively bargain? It is all about Democratic power and money but not about rights.

  • This is a really good one too. It’s by the Heritage organization and a little shorter than the other 2.

  • Public employees are like mothers in many ways…no one appreciates what they do until they aren’t there doing it. When schools deteriorate, good students no longer study to become teachers, long lines persist at government facilities due to worker shortage, children who are abused do not get the services they need, individuals with physical, emotional and/or mental challenges are left untreated…maybe some of you will begin to realize that many government workers are providing valuable service to a variety of vulnerable populations. And none of them are getting rich.

  • “Public employees are like mothers in many ways…no one appreciates what they do until they aren’t there doing it.”

    Considering the absenteeism rampant among public employees as opposed to people in the private sector a lot of them on any given day aren’t doing what they are paid to be doing in any case.

    “When schools deteriorate”

    We are spending more on public education today, adjusted for inflation, than we have ever spent, and the results are pathetic. That helps explain the rise in the homeschooling movement.

    “good students no longer study to become teachers”

    Education majors usually come from the bottom 25% academically of their colleges and universities.

    “long lines persist at government facilities due to worker shortage”

    We have that now and we have more people working for the government now than at any time since World War II.

    “children who are abused do not get the services they need”

    That is the case now, judging from the treatment that kids receive from the government in cases where I am appointed Guardian ad Litem for them by courts.

    “individuals with physical, emotional and/or mental challenges are left untreated”

    Once again, that is the case now. Scandals involving abuse of mentally handicapped individuals in government care are routine, often involving physical and sexual abuse by public employees.

    “maybe some of you will begin to realize that many government workers are providing valuable service to a variety of vulnerable populations.”

    Nah, I think it more likely that more people will awaken to the fact that governmental institutions created to help people have become giant cash cows that provide often rotten treatment to the people they are ostensibly meant to aid.

    “And none of them are getting rich.”

    Almost all of them are doing far better than they would if they had to hustle for a job in the private sector.

  • “We have more people working for the government now than at any time since World War II.”

    That depends on what level of government you are talking about. Federal employment has grown quite a bit, but not necessarily state and local employment. You need only look at all the vacant office space in downtown Springfield next time you’re here to see evidence of that. Many agencies of the State of Illinois have shrunk drastically in the last 10-15 years or so. The agency I work for once employed 25 people; it’s down to 14 today and with two people near retirement will probably be down to 12 shortly. Many state parks and historic sites like Lincoln’s New Salem that once employed numerous full time and seasonal workers are running almost entirely on unpaid volunteer help today — and their physical condition, sadly, shows that.

    I do think that some of the Lincoln sites would be better off being privatized in the long run (a la Colonial Williamsburg) and there is probably enough interest in Lincoln out there to get well-heeled donors interested in a foundation for that purpose. But the reason I suggest that is precisely because the ability of state government to handle these tasks is shrinking, not growing.

  • I would stand by my contention Elaine and I believe the numbers bear me out.

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/growth-in-government-employment/

    My county is actually an interesting example of the process. Livingston County in Illlinois has had a remarkably static population for over a century. We had 40,000 people approximately during the Grant administration and we have that today. When my former partner was growing up in a town of 4,000 in the Sixties the town had one cop and two part timers. We now have seven cops and three part timers. The growth of government employment at all levels in this country has been explosive since the Sixties.

  • Well, actually if you look at the chart, federal employment went DOWN in the 1990s and even in 2010 hadn’t quite bounced back to the 1990 level. My guess is that a lot of that decrease had to do with cutbacks in the military following the first Gulf War and the various rounds of base closings prescribed by the Base Realignment And Closing (BRAC) commission.

    As for overall federal and state employment, law enforcement is obviously one of those sectors of public employment that HAS grown explosively as cities and suburbs expand, crime rates go up, and state and federal government provide additional funding for hiring cops. Public schools in fast-growing areas also have to hire more people. They also have to hire more aides and support staff in recent years for things like special education, as I’m sure you know. Since the overall population of the U.S. has increased by 60 million since 1990 it stands to reason that schools and law enforcement would have to grow with it.

    Also some states went through a prison-building spree in the 1980s and 90s and those prisons obviously have to be staffed. Even so, understaffing and working guards overtime to the point of exhaustion is a common problem at some institutions (just ask someone who works at Pontiac Correctional Center ).

  • “My guess is that a lot of that decrease had to do with cutbacks in the military following the first Gulf War and the various rounds of base closings prescribed by the Base Realignment And Closing (BRAC) commission.”

    You would be correct in that assumption Elaine. The military went through a substantial reduction in force following the end of the Cold War.

    “As for overall federal and state employment, law enforcement is obviously one of those sectors of public employment that HAS grown explosively as cities and suburbs expand, crime rates go up, and state and federal government provide additional funding for hiring cops.”

    Population expansion has little to do with it Elaine. What has a lot to do with it is the earmarking of funds as you point out, and also legislation criminalizing fairly trivial matters. After 28 years doing criminal defense work, I’d say much of it is for nought. Local governments tend to use traffic tickets as sources of revenue which involve a fair amount of court time; very low level drug arrests; orders of protection that turn non-physical boyfriend and girlfriend and husband and wife spats into criminal cases; etc. A good 80% of criminal cases today I would estimate have little to do with maintaining public order and a great deal to do with a mistaken belief that government can micro-manage society and cure all ills.

    “They also have to hire more aides and support staff in recent years for things like special education, as I’m sure you know.”

    In regard to increased aides and support staff at schools I view almost all of this as wasted expenditure in my opinion. Schools have gotten endlessly bureaucratic and this development has helped further degrade the performance of an already shaky public school system. The movement to homeschooling is a testament to failing public schools even as we pump ever more funds into these bottomless money pits.

    “Also some states went through a prison-building spree in the 1980s and 90s and those prisons obviously have to be staffed. Even so, understaffing and working guards overtime to the point of exhaustion is a common problem at some institutions (just ask someone who works at Pontiac Correctional Center ).”

    I have represented quite a few guards at both Pontiac and Dwight. The stories they tell me have given me very little faith in how DOC spends our taxpayer funds. Additionally our prisons have effectively become hostels for very low level criminals, not their original intent, rather than places where only the most serious felons are sent. The abolition of county farms where low level offenders decades ago were sent, and which usually ran at a profit to the county, has helped create this problem.

    Our society has operated under the twin illusions that government can truly transform society and cure almost all ills, and that we had limitless funds to support such government. Both these illusions are ending before our eyes.

Multiculturalism Explained

Tuesday, March 8, AD 2011

You are on target Klavan on the Culture!  Knowledge of other cultures and their history is a great thing.  Multiculturalism, however, has become merely a mantra for those who wish to excuse bad behavior, here and abroad, if the malefactors can claim favored victim status bestowed by the forces of the Left.  Curiously, or pehaps not so curiously, it is usually embraced by political liberals, who are often notoriously intolerant towards domestic political opponents who have ideas that differ one iota from their own.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

5 Responses to Multiculturalism Explained

  • The British also wiped out the infamous Thug cult of heriditary murderers too. William Sleeman’s Thug or A Million Murders has the chilling and fascinating story of how one man with iron determination wiped out a intergenerational gang of cold blooded killers.

  • The video got one thing right about multiculturalism. “No one’s really crazy enough to believe it.” And nobody does. Multiculturalism as presented in the video is a caricature. No defender of multiculturalism, would defend female circumcision. In fact, they are usually less tolerant of non-conforming morals (as opposed to the amoral aspects of cultures). They don’t tolerate rural gun cultures, traditional gender roles, or discrimination against homosexuals.

    When critics talk about multiculturalism, they mean two things: Islam and ethnic diversity. Chinese immigrants don’t do suicide bombings. The threat of Islam as an invading culture is overblown to say the least. Their numbers in the West are just too miniscule and most of them are Westernized. The only way to reduce their influence any further would be to ban the religion. The rest of the criticism against multiculturalism isn’t about morals. It’s directed at Catholics and Eastern Orthodox of Mexican and Eastern European descent. Those who share the same morals. People don’t like foreigners taking jobs, buying out businesses, and talking in an incomprehensible language. It’s properly called xenophobia.

    I don’t know why we should look to Europe for guidance on how to order society. Europe is naturally more xenophobic since they were once comprised of homogeneous nations. They’re experiencing what the US went through a century ago. Back then, the KKK was a bulwark against multiculturalism. Around 1920 was America’s “multiculturalism has failed” moment. We eventually got over it. Europe should learn from the US.

  • “No defender of multiculturalism, would defend female circumcision.”

    Quite untrue RR.

    http://www.jewcy.com/post/intellectual_defense_female_genital_mutilation

    The moral nihilism at the core of the multicultural endeavor is not to be underestimated.

  • Now I get it.

    Mr. Dalton, I’ve seen on-line defenses of thugee. They were “practicing their religion serving Ma Cali.” And, English rule was far worse.

    The Raj also ended “suttee” the so-called religious custom where a dead man’s widow was emolated on the man’s funeral pyre. The Brit General, Napier, I think, was told that was the custom. His rejoinder, the Brits also have a custome. They hang men that burn to death women.

    And, the Conquistadores, the most vilest white men since Creation, ended human sacrifice and brought Christ to the Americas.

    I abruptly stopped making donations to a certain missionary order when its magazine editors apologized to native Americans for converting their ancestors from pagainism.

    I know. I’m a bad person . . .

  • The problem with multiculuralism is the multi part. it isn’t true. ‘Multiculturalism’ is properly understood as materialism/socialism. It is better defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is. It is not Christian. Anything else goes. Too simplistic? Ask yourself what is ‘tolerated’ and what is not tolerated. Homosexualism, abortion, paganism, atheism, plural marriage, perverse sex, drugs, jihadism, etc. all tolerated. Traditional family, Christianity (especially that orthodox Catholic stuff), European culture (from before the Enlightenment) and all its offshoots – not tolerated.

    It seems pretty simple. Good things are bad and evil things are good. Never mind the objective definitions, I decide – it is the dictatorship of me, which becomes a Hobbesian war of all against all. Perhaps when he wrote that, he was not referring to the pre-historic natural state, but to the one we are building, or is that merely what’s left after we are done destroying? Hmm . . .

    What is real multiculuralism? The Catholic Church. Have you seen how many Rites there are? How many different people are in the One Body? Even women and foreigners, not to mention those in other dimensions like Saints and perhaps other species, angels. The Church is trans-dimensional multiculturalism – it trumps plain old one dimensional materialist multiculturalism.

14 Responses to Alternate Oscars

  • Don, good post. But fine films didn’t end in 1939, as Klavan suggests. I just saw David Lean’s “Great Expectations,” made in 1949. Wish you would post the clip near the end between Pip and his benefactor on his deathbed. Moved me to tears.

    Others that would make my top 10 list: “Il Postino,” “Amadeus,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Bridge on the River Kwai,” “The Mayor of Casterbridge” (BBC), “12 Angry Men,” and “The Apartment.” Scarcely a sex scene or profanity in any of them, except for an imagined vulgarity by the Mozart character.

    My wife and I suffered through the execrable Black Swan and nearly walked out. It was disgustingly Hollywood. I haven’t watched the Oscars in full since Johnny Carson hosted. Whatever happened to the Golden Age that included the likes of Spencer Tracy, Bogart, Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Vivien Leigh, etc., to be replaced by James Franco in drag and a bunch of talentless, classless poseurs. It was left to old Kirk Douglas, creaky and half-gone, to save tradition, only to have the Oscar-winning supporting actress to drop an f-bomb at the end of his presentation.

    That sums up Hollywood’s middle finger to the better America many of us remember.

    By the way, at your suggestion, I have ordered El Cid from the library and note that Angel on My Shoulder is scheduled to be shown soon on Turner Classics, along with Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1940’s version).

  • Joe, I think fine films are still being made today. I greatly enjoyed The Incredibles for example and I think the latest Star Trek film had its moments. The Lord of the Rings trilogy fascinated me. Kenneth Branaugh’s Henry V is one for the ages. My list could go on with many other films. I watch quite a few films with my family, and not just those from the Golden Era. It is simply that the abysmally poor category has increased dramatically since the Sixties. We have a perfect storm of dropping educational standards, the ability of film directors to conceal poor films with sex, violence and explosions and actors and actresses who specialize in mumbling to produce some mind boggingly bad drek. The biggest problem I think is that so much in the way of films seems to be produced on autopilot with little to no original thought behind them. As T.S. Elliot noted we live in a time of hollow men with hollow chests and hollower heads.

  • K, he won me over by filling half of the screen with Gibbs. (Yes, I’m that easy to manipulate.)

  • Donald-
    looking at your list reminds me of a conversation that’s been going around (here and here for example) about supposedly “adult” fare.

    The Incredibles is probably the best original movie released in my adult life (a category that is a bit more limited than it may seem, living in the Era Of Remakes); Lord of the Rings, even though it (naturally) suffers from not being six movies and the limited imagination of some of the actors, was outstanding.

    I can’t watch the newest star trek, for reasons starting with “even a military as cruddy as Picard’s StarFleet does not work like that” and including a deep disgust for “updates” by and large.

    Thinking of movies I love, they’re almost all “childish” or “geeky”– things that reject the supposedly adult culture. The Last Unicorn, Princess Bride, Willow, the real Star Wars movies, Riki Tiki Tavi… good grief, my daughter’s Magical Meow Meow Taruto anime has more dealings with mature themes, like death, honor, loyalty, bravery, truth and unrequited love than most “adult” movies. (Anyone who can watch episode 3, “Long, Long Ago,” without crying is either heartless or very tough.)

    Hollywood isn’t just limited by their politics– they’re limited by their belief that hope, optimism and joy are childish.

  • heh

    Last time I cared about the BS/oscars was the year “Patton” was nominated.

    Some of you weren’t allowed to be born . . .

    No wait! That was before Roe v. Wade!

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • We live in odd times Foxfier when the best “adult” films are often kid flicks. In regard to the Trek movie I had similar criticisms which I posted in my review that no military in the world acts the way Star Fleet does in that movie. However, I also pointed out that the original Star Trek was about as silly. (Oh yes, it is a good idea to send the Captain and the ship’s senior officers on an away mission that should be commanded by Ensign Expendable. Then we have the female personnel running around the ship dressed in miniskirts and go-go boots. Kirk has a “flexible” attitude towards orders and yet never seems to suffer any consequences. Paperwork for command officers has apparently vanished in the 23rd Century. The list could go on and on!)

  • Have any of you seen “The King’s Speech?” I highly recommend it (there is a brief scene which contains bad language – the King did not stutter when he cursed. Unfortunately, I hear as bad or worse simply walking down the street behind a bunch of teenagers.)

    No surprise ending, but it nonetheless moved and entertained me. The film celebrates responsibility and duty (the sometimes romanticized Duke of Windsor is portrayed -accurately – as a selfish and nasty bounder) and also the wisdom gained by experience vs. merely having a degree. At a time when our own elites seem allergic to common sense and have boundless scorn for those who did not attend the right schools, that message hits the mark.

  • I am looking forward to seeing that film Donna. I have always had a fondness for George VI. He was a good family man and he and his family showed a fair amount of courage by staying in London during the blitz and sharing the dangers of their people. I also liked the way he talked Churchill out of landing with the British troops on D-Day by telling him that if Churchill was doing this, he as King had to be there also. The English have had far worse kings than the Queen’s father.

    Agreed as to the Duke of Windsor, a selfish grown brat of marginal intelligence, less ability and more than a little sympathetic to the Nazis prior to the War. The British dodged a bullet when he gave up the throne to marry the golddigger he lusted after.

  • And let’s not forget the King’s wife. When I was in England many years ago, I was struck by the affection and respect that the Brits, even young, trying-hard-to-be-hip London males, had for the “Queen Mum.” Everyone, even those not enamored of the institution of the monarchy, seemed to adore her, as though she was the kindly National Grandmother. When I saw “The King’s Speech,” I better understood the reason for their love.

  • I know very little about the Royal Family, other than that my grandmother– who hated the English with a burning passion– liked the current queen; looking at the lady, I’m not surprised to hear folks say her folks were good people.

  • Donna, et al, just returned from seeing The King’s Speech and found it wonderfully crafted and moving and, notwithstanding Christopher Hitchens’ meanspirited (since when is he otherwise?) essays finding fault with the portrayal of Churchill, heartily recommend this film.

  • I’m looking forward to seeing it when it comes out on blueray Joe. I have always been a sucker for English historical films.

  • Don, this is a movie that’s meant to be seen on the big screen. Don’t wait, go see it in a theater. You will be glad you did. Guaranteed.

Andrew Klavan on Extremists

Thursday, October 21, AD 2010

In a nation where 40% of the population identify as conservatives, it is hilarious that we have what is laughingly referred to as the mainstream media which tilts overwhelmingly to the left, and purports to determine which candidates are “moderate” and which are “mainstream”.  However, in the age of the internet, the power of the mainstream media is a diminishing asset, especially when such examples as NPR firing liberal Juan Williams for stating that he is nervous on a plane when he sees passengers in traditional muslim garbindicate clearly who the intolerant extremists truly are.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

8 Responses to Andrew Klavan on Extremists