tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post189275195975075050..comments2024-01-09T15:03:54.986-05:00Comments on Wolf Howling: Pathologies and Motivations of the LeftGWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-43037827599505879022015-03-17T21:12:50.727-04:002015-03-17T21:12:50.727-04:00This anti-science caricature the left has built as...<i>This anti-science caricature the left has built as a charge against the right as a whole is ... a bunch of crap.</i><br /><br />There are countless examples of republicans saying stupid things about science (a recent viral video showed one republican having it explained to him that the stomach was not connected to the vagina). There is nary a republican who doesn't condemn evolution and climate change. But that's shooting fish in a barrel. This is the most recent example of republicans putting their money interests against science.<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/<br /><br />And you wonder why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republicans. <br /><br /><i>All of that said, you can't deny that academia at all levels is tilted far to the left.</i><br /><br />You're going to hate this answer, I know. But it's quite frankly because we have to answer to reality. They don't pass doctorates out on the street, you know. And to get one, you have to have proof of your argument, not faith in your argument. We also have to deal with peer review, which demands we're subject to objective reality. You can't be economics professor and claim that supply side economics works. You'd get laughed out of the room. Should science professors teach that the world is 6,000 years old? Of course not. But because this objectively false garbage isn't taught, that is somehow evidence that universities are tilted to the left. As Stephen Colbert said, "Truth has a liberal bias."<br /><br /><i>but I've spent countless pixels urging people on the right to speak on not just a rational level, but an emotional one.</i><br /><br />The republicans have beaten you to this. I haven't heard a rational argument from republicans in years. It's all guided by feeling, emotion, and a magic book about angels in the sky. And don't forget that anger is the greatest republican emotion of them all. It gets white males all riled up when they think about affirmative action, gay sex, etc. <br /><br />In fact, all you need to know about the state of the current republican party is look at September 2011 when the audience at a presidential debate booed a soldier who identified himself as gay. The republicans in the hall booed. BOOED. <br /><br />Your party actually booed an American soldier. That's amazing. And horrifying. Anyone who stayed republican after that day should be ashamed of themselves.<br /><br />That said, thanks for listening... :)<br />Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-3025783288106417962015-03-17T21:12:29.198-04:002015-03-17T21:12:29.198-04:00Fox News Special Report is far and away the best o...<br /><i>Fox News Special Report is far and away the best one hour block of hard news</i><br /><br />I've only watched Fox News when I need a dose of comedy. I don't get my news from tv, but I find it hard to believe that a right-wing host talking to two conservatives and a token liberal is 'fair and balanced'.<br /><br /><i>Victim groups are identifiable groups of people encouraged to define themselves by their membership in that group and to vote or act solely on the basis of their membership.<i><br /><br />You've just given me a wonderful definition of the NRA, Federalist Society, John Birch Society, Klan, the cast of Fox News, and several other right-wing groups that pop to mind.<br /><br /><i>I rarely see anyone on the left standing up for, say, a baker who regularly serves all clients, but then loses his business because he or she refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding simply because it violates his conscience</i><br /><br />I googled that and found no incident of a bakery going bankrupt over a few gay wedding cakes. Besides, you're a believer in the free market, right? If people boycott a bakery and they go out of business, that's called survival of the fittest.<br /><br /></i> Or an academic who loses his job merely for restating the Catholic position on abortion or homosexuality.</i><br /><br />Name one. Seriously. You're right - I'm in academia and it is damn near impossible to fire a professor for espousing even the most abhorrent views. I have countless examples if you're interested.<br /><br /><i>You can be jailed for quoting Churchill's observations on Islam.</i><br /><br />That sounded false, so I looked it up. Truth is that you <i>can</i> quote Churchill anywhere you want in England. What you <i>can't</i> do is give a speech in front of Winchester Guildhall without permission and refuse a dispersal order. You can't read Green Eggs and Ham on the steps of the White House either, and that's not because Dr. Seuss is racist.<br /><br /><i>At any rate, when I say using the police power of the state, those are the type of things to which I refer.</i><br /><br />Then you're serving up very weak tea.<br /><br /><i>the welfare system which, while it has provided a necessary safety net, has done nothing to break cyclical poverty.</i><br /><br />So....what then? Do you want to get rid of it? Probably not, as it provides a safety net. Do you want to keep it? No, because poverty will never be eradicated. This isn't a position, it's an Escher staircase.<br /><br /><i>4. The war on religion in this country is a rather long topic.</i><br /><br />If there's a war on religion in this country, religion is definitely winning. And I did read your post that you cited. I'm sorry, but your idea of religion in government is no literally no different than sharia law. A theocracy by another name.<br /><br /><i>The 20th century is replete with examples of states where religion was outlawed or wholly marginalized</i><br /><br />Oh for god's sake. We can't even take away the tax-exempt status for Scientology. Religion is a sacred cow in this country and will never die. Trust me, I'm on the losing side of this one and it's not even fair to call it an uphill battle.<br /><br /><i>to punish anyone who would does not wholly support "gay marriage."</i><br /><br />Yeah, my neighbor went to jail yesterday for not wholly supporting gay marriage. And for disliking the color green. This happened in the same fantasy world you're talking about.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-21841208004232474272015-03-17T17:17:01.890-04:002015-03-17T17:17:01.890-04:004. (Continued) Jeff, if government can make laws...4. (Continued) Jeff, if government can make laws based on what is best for the governing class, they will do so. The 20th century is replete with examples of states where religion was outlawed or wholly marginalized. When that happens, the individual human life becomes secondary to what is best for the state. Well over a hundred million people died because of it -- and not in war. <br /><br />Law and religion meet where the law would force someone to act against their conscience. We see that with the use of "gay rights" not to demand equal treatment in say, jobs, housing, etc., but to punish anyone who would does not wholly support "gay marriage." It is one thing to allow for equal treatment under the law, a whole other to use the police power of the state to normalize homosexuality and to normalize homosexuality through the education system.<br /><br />Looking at what I just wrote, this begs much more in depth treatment. Another post in the offing. . . . <br /><br />5. Science and math are hardly what I'm referring to, and since they are the only two issues you raise, I think you realize that.<br /><br />By the way, you're falling into caricature. As to evolution, you do realize that Darwin's theory derives from the work of a Catholic friar, and that the Big Bang Theory is wholly the work of a Catholic Priest. The Church and men of religion, Galileo aside, was at the forefront of the development of science, medicine technology for most of the last millennium. I assume since you mentioned that you were part of a "department" in an earlier comment, that you are either at or employed in a college or university. You can thank the Church for that, as well as hospitals and the "scientific theory" that defines science itself. <br /><br />This anti-science caricature the left has built as a charge against the right as a whole is not without some small basis when it comes to those who discount evolution, but beyond that, it's a bunch of crap.<br /><br />All of that said, you can't deny that academia at all levels is tilted far to the left. Nor that where it becomes most tilted is in the social sciences and liberal arts.<br /><br />6. The Family: I addressed this in the other post. I certainly support the state protecting children. My problem here is with laws that economically punish families and with the policies that put the state in between the parents and the child, particularly in regards to birth control and abortion.<br /><br />7. Emotion over reason. Don't get too upset over this one, Jeff. The left has mastered this. I'm envious. Indeed, you're new to this blog, but I've spent countless pixels urging people on the right to speak on not just a rational level, but an emotional one.<br /><br />8. Kulaks: No, I don't think that I have demonized anyone. To the contrary, as someone said not all that long ago, "conservatives think liberals are stupid, liberals think conservatives are evil." Merely to criticize someone is not to demonize. But to wholly de-legitimize someone and all they will ever say, that is how I define "demonizing." <br /><br />9. As to Western Civilization, we might well be playing a game of semantics. As to your statement regarding assessment and corrections, I agree with it completely. But, again, that is not my meaning. You saw the examples I used. Funny quote from Steward. Hadn't heard that before. GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-83335334506254208972015-03-17T16:28:04.262-04:002015-03-17T16:28:04.262-04:00As a threshold matter, thanks for commenting Jeff....As a threshold matter, thanks for commenting Jeff. I appreciate the opportunity to either defend my positions or to be pointed out where they are weak.<br /><br />1. Victim Groups -- <br />Fox News Special Report is far and away the best one hour block of hard news on the air, bar none. You get all of the news there, both good and bad, regardeless where one falls on the political spectrum. What you don't get is the filtration that you get from the big three, where news which hurts the left is either downplayed or simply ignored. It really is "fair and balanced." Beyond that, its been a year since I've seen anything else on Fox, so I will have to take you at your word about their complaints.<br /><br />That said, the examples you raise are not discrete "victim groups," at least not as I'm using that word. Victim groups are identifiable groups of people encouraged to define themselves by their membership in that group and to vote or act solely on the basis of their membership.<br /><br />2. Jeff, I am not sure what you mean by Feruson, NYC, etc. Stifling speech can indeed be a bipartisan activity, so, we can agree on that.<br /><br />That said, I rarely see anyone on the left standing up for, say, a baker who regularly serves all clients, but then loses his business because he or she refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding simply because it violates his conscience. Or an academic who loses his job merely for restating the Catholic position on abortion or homosexuality. <br /><br />Perhaps the clearest examples are from Britain, where their experiment in socialism is about two decades ahead of ours. You can be jailed for quoting Churchill's observations on Islam. <br /><br />At any rate, when I say using the police power of the state, those are the type of things to which I refer. <br /><br />3. Socio-Economics: Not quite the straw men that you think. I am not saying that everyone on the left side of the spectrum is pining for communism. That would be ridiculous. But, socio-economics are, generally, seen as both the root of problems and the solutions by the left. The way it plays out in our society is class warfare, the campaign against the 1%, etc. Or the welfare system which, while it has provided a necessary safety net, has done nothing to break cyclical poverty. <br /><br />Yet another example, in the wake of 9-11, within days, then Senator Obama penned an essay, hardly unique, the gist of which is that the hijackers and their ilk were motivated by a lack of jobs and opportunities in the Middle East. We've seen that same thought endlessly recycled right through today. Indeed, it animates our foreign policy at the moment. That's fine for dealing with Europe, not so fine when dealing with groups whose motivations far transcend socio-economic concerns.<br /><br />4. The war on religion in this country is a rather long topic. Let me just give a cite here. http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2012/02/historical-perspective-on-religion.html<br /><br />I am extremely well aware of the First Amendment and its origins. It was never meant to divest Christianity or Judaism from influencing our laws or being part of our politics. It was designed to allow for religious pluralism and prevent any sort of favoritism. The movement to wholly secularize government is very much a modern one. Again, I refer you to the post I cite. GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-58804504877989869502015-03-17T15:30:07.141-04:002015-03-17T15:30:07.141-04:00Hello, Jeff
What I tried to do in this post was d...Hello, Jeff<br /><br />What I tried to do in this post was distill some inchoate thoughts. They are generalities and, as such, subject to exception. <br /><br />Reading through your comments, it dawns on me that some of the labels we use to describe political leanings really do need to be changed, but to what, I am still not sure. I'll give that some thought. <br /><br />For example, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, NY Senator, lifelong Democrat, was a "liberal," but he was a liberal in the sense that I consider myself one also -- freedom of speech, intellectual honesty, and concern with social welfare. Indeed, he was one of my icons, and I would have voted for him for any place in government. So, our political labels are outdated. <br /><br />All of that is probably the subject of another post in the next few days. Let me get to your specifics. GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-8163175570740843442015-03-16T20:08:55.010-04:002015-03-16T20:08:55.010-04:00The left wants morality to be determined solely by...<i>The left wants morality to be determined solely by Government.</i><br /><br />I seriously don't understand that. You mean because the government can make and enforce laws? I'm ok with that...<br /><br /><i>their greatest weapon has come with "gay rights," given that both Judaism and Christianity view homosexuality as a sin.</i><br /><br />Yeah, how dare a section of our society demand basic equal rights! The nerve of them! And it doesn't matter that the Jews and Christians consider homosexuality a sin. The law and religion are two different things. That is the WHOLE POINT of why this nation was established.<br /><br /><i>5. the left has long sought to dominate academia at all levels, to control the curriculum, and to teach left wing values.</i><br /><br />Yeah, like science and math. Explaining to a freshman that the world is not 6000 years old and that supply side economics is mathematically impossible is considered 'indoctrination' among those with persecution complexes. Read Hofstadter's <i>The Paranoid Style in American Politics</i>for further explanation.<br /><br /><i>Family: The basis . . .</i><br /><br />I seriously have no idea what you mean here. You mean when the state steps in to protect a child who's been raped by her father? Or when the government investigates a republican congressman for whipping foster children and using them in campaign ads? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44427_GOP_State_Rep._Harris_Exploited_Foster_Daughter_for_Political_Campaign_Reportedly_Whipped_Children<br /><br /><i>7. Emotion Over Reason</i><br /><br />I'll remember that next time I see an abortion protester with a poster of a fetus. Or a senator throwing a snowball to show that global warming doesn't exist. Or starting a bloody interminable war by feeding on the fears of a nervous post-9/11 public. Or telling people that the government will take their guns away! Or telling poor people in their coalition that the government wants to hit them with a 'death tax' (that only multimillionaires pay). Oh my god could I go on with this one...<br /><br /><i>8. Kulaks . . the left must always have an evil oppressor to demonize.</i><br /><br />Um...you've spent the entire post demonizing the left, academia, gay rights advocates, etc. <br /><br /><i>9. Hatred of Western Civilization</i><br /><br />Newsflash: America is great, but it isn't perfect. It won't destroy us to point out and learn from our mistakes. This idea that we must never criticize our country is tiring and wrong. We only get stronger if we point out our foibles.<br /><br />Jon Stewart said it best: "Republicans love America. They just hate half the people in it. Democrats also love America. They just with it were a different country."Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-48690059810031502412015-03-16T20:08:40.111-04:002015-03-16T20:08:40.111-04:00Okay, since you say I'm welcome here, I'll...Okay, since you say I'm welcome here, I'll bite on this one. (It's good to find a blog where a 'troll' isn't defined as someone who disagrees and likes debate).<br /><br /><i>1. Victim Groups</i><br /><br />If you want a good drinking game, take a shot every time someone on Fox News complains about the evil media and how the man is bringing them down. Same for the dreaded WAR ON CHRISTMAS. Or literally every Hannity episode ever - that man seriously thinks his poor rich friends are being constantly persecuted. I see victims groups on the left as well, but these are people who are actually discriminated against, not people who whine over nativity scenes in their gated communities.<br /><br /><i>2. left uses that to justify harnessing the police power of the state</i><br /><br />Wow, I wish we had done that in Ferguson. Or in New York City. Or in [name literally any place in the US].<br /><br /><i>the left seeks to punish . . . thought and speech through the police powers of the state.</i><br /><br />That is an unfortunate quality of the fringe left, I'll give you. But I don't know a single democrat who believes in that. (You used the same argument earlier, so I can too I hope.) Besides, stifling speech is a bipartisan activity.<br /><br /><i>3. Socio-Economics: A leftist views perfection as equality of outcome, and more particularly, economic outcome.</i><br /><br />Talk about a generalization! Again, I know of no democrat who wants <i>literal</i>income equality. If you want to take people on the left side of the spectrum and lump them all as communists (which you are doing), then I am allowed to call every republican a science-denying, racist, toothless, bible-beating moron. Both are straw men. <br /><br /><i>4. . . . drive the Judeo-Christian religion from the public square. . .</i><br /><br />Yeah, we've done an excellent job of that. You can't go 5 feet without a church on the corner or a cross in your face. More whining from the War on Christmas brigade.<br /><br /><i>The Judeo-Christian religions are inextricably linked to our governing systems,</i><br /><br />Not if you ask the founding fathers. Or maybe you mean the ten commandments, of which only two are against our current laws. Or maybe you haven't read the first amendment, which negates your hypothesis.Jeffnoreply@blogger.com