We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, December 22. 2012
This is one of the most depressing Christmases many can remember. Many feel that way this year, and not just Libertarian-Conservatives. It seems gloomy out there.
There are many factors, Mrs. B. theorizes. A world of kids with lousy job opportunities, higher taxes, decreasing incomes, the horrors of Newtown, unemployment, the election, etc.
She is quite shrewd about politics. From a political standpoint, her view is that a tipping point has occurred. Yes, Repubs won some elections, yes, it was fairly close, etc., but her main point was the decline of marriage and the rise of childbirth outside of marriage. The single woman vote. Emily or whoever she was.
She says African-Americans and immigrant Hispanics will trend Progressive for the indefinite future because their political goal is to get stuff from the government, but that is nothing new. Not everybody understands what America is all about. Married white people, and especially married white Christians with self-reliance as a fundamental socio-cultural goal, are descending towards a minority.
Many men are no longer in any hurry to get married despite marriage's provision of the comforts, partnership, social circles, and supports needed in life in general and for child-rearing in particular. Single women emotionally look to government for what they once looked to men for. She believes that American acceptance of dependency has reached a tipping point, predicted for over 200 years, which will forever alter American politics.
Her somewhat defeatist view is to hunker down and just to take care of your family as best your can, and to stay away from the news.
Related, here's a fine and heavily-illustrated history of government vs. freedom.
Tracked: Dec 23, 14:35
Thoughts On A Sunday
Christmas is the day after tomorrow and the incipient Last Minute Shopping madness is about to descend upon us all. While I have yet to pick up Deb's gift (though it's already bought and paid for) all of our...
Weblog: Weekend Pundit
Tracked: Dec 23, 20:10
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Yes. The tipping point realization for me that the majority of Americans no longer think like I do, about anything.
Mrs. BD is spot on and in my humble opinon, is directly related to the decline in men who are actually men not wussified as those in the feminist movement would them act.
I agree. One problem is too many women school principals have no principles when it comes to schooling boys/young men. I provided that buffer to my sons (now 21 & 20) and they've grown up with their testicles intact.
I also agree but with a defiant "not so fast." We as conservatives must begin networking with Libertarians. Networking with the non political also.The Libs are control freaks and that is their Achilles Heel . Everyday and every in every way we should be pointing out their overreaches. That was Reagan's greatest tool.
While I am spouting off-stop trotting out Reagan quotes and pictures all the time. I loved Reagan and he is probably the guy that converted me to conservatism but the people we are trying to reach just don't relate to an old guy with grease in his hair. It reeks of a "Weekend at Bernie's."
The Founders were correct to not let women vote! Women's suffrage has led to almost all problems in the economy, war fighting, education, budget deficits, etc. Repealing suffrage is the only way out. Let hating begin.
I am a woman, and a smart one, who registered to vote on her 18th birthday and who has voted every opportunity since then, and I am beginning to agree with you. I would gladly give up my right to vote if it meant that the Sandra Flukes whose views are a majority of my demographic (female, 32 years old) would lose theirs as well.
Very courageous of you, m'am. There is another way to the same goal --that being, remove suffrage from those who really have been handed a cup of hemlock and told it's ambrosia, and don't actually know one from the other.
Raise the age to 25. Not a soul loses suffrage --everyone gets to 25.
A lot of young men who volunteered to go into the Armed Forces don't see twenty-five.
Any attempt to raise the voting age would push that point, and it's one that I would have to think about. Of course if your suggestion wasn't serious then let me suggest a frivolous improvement that has an equal chance in Hell, deny the franchise to anyone (of any race, color, or creed) who receives more than 50% of their income from the state or federal government.
I would meet that issue head on, JtR. Please don't take the author lightly --he was far from a 'right-winger'. He was into squaring the leveling Constitution with the catagorical imperative of merit, and as both apply to survival of the fittest and the biological determinism of natural law.
Any number of worlds are colliding --as would be expected if suddenly space and time disappeared from our wisdom model --which the communications revolution has pretty much made happen in some large ways. And "familiararity breeds contempt" as much as "absence makes the heart grow fonder".
The rule of law makes us all equal, but whose law is it? If it's God's, why are half of us smarter than the other half? Clearly that's nature's law, and it makes us haves and have-nots. God wants a bottom quintile? The bottom half senses it's disadvantaged place on the God & nature-made continuum of capability and will throw Godless and un-natural levellers into the political system, but of course, naturally! Asking the bottom half of the IQ scale to become conservative means somehow the status quo (the object of the conserving) needs to be framed as the best they're ever gonna get, so might as well swallow the medicine.
This cruel message, until the comms revolution, never needed to be given eye to eye (neither across space, nor time --as represented by the passing generations), it was implicit in political norms.
No more. One solution, of courwse, is for one side to eat the other --which happened countless times on a smaller scale during our million years of Sapiens-hood evolution.
What we see around us now are only the winners --to date. Not only the winners against the others on the far side of the nountain, but winners over tribe members who lacked the god-gene, and so saw no problem with eating their young of a dark winter's famine.
This is good, on the topic at hand:
Is America Becoming a Pagan Kingdom?
Mrs. BD. is correct, and her suggestion to stay away from the news is right on, but I don't like the sound of the word "defeatist". We live in discouraging times, therefore we need to have courage. Family is the best place to focus our energies, but we also have to work to redeem the culture somehow.
staying away from the new is like staying away from the soup when you're one of the ingredients.
Four people referred to the "must be obeyed" woman as "Mrs. BD".
What's wrong with this picture?
As always...the "astute observer"...
I was going to mention that it's "Mrs. Barrister"...not "Mrs. BD".
Just waiting for you to come along...
You know I swore I read that the first time as Mrs. BD.
My apologies to TB - I'm a putz.
She's right, but I think it's at least partly due to conservatives allowing themselves to be silenced. We must stop doing that.
If Republicans want to win elections they must address the social issues (decline of marriage, rise in out of wedlock births) using the language of the social sciences, not the language of religion. The damage caused by the left's radical social policies is clear - conservatives must find political leaders who can articulate conservative principles to a mass culture. Not easy, but not impossible either.
I think this is a difficult means by which to 'win' elections in any meaningful way.
While I agree these are important points, the vast majority of people do not find these to be compelling issues, certainly not in the manner they are being discussed by Republicans. They are easily turned into jokes by the modern news providers like Jon Stewart and the contemptible Steven Colbert.
If Republicans or conservatives wish to win back the audience, they have to make cogent arguments which logically support their positions which are meaningful. That is, avoid social issues altogether. It's not a place where politics belongs to begin with.
Conservatives can, and will, win the economics and business argument time and time again, because the Democrats cannot continue to make the world more dependent on government largesse and expect to be successful. Eventually there will be no money to fulfill their obligations. It's a long run losing policy.
In my estimation, if we're capable of fixing our financial issues, the social issues will take care of themselves. But more importantly, if we create an atmosphere of success, then at least we can deal with social issues more effectively.
Buddy touches on something that has bothered me for quite a while although he didn't actually come out and state it implicitly. To wit: Is life "fair" and if not, why not?
Can a person born to an economic underclass rise to be successful in business? Does that individual require assistance to be successful? At what point does the drive to succeed overcome the need for assistance? Or alternatively, at what point does the assistance stop and the individual stands alone to win or lose as the result of their own efforts.
Somebody gotta win, somebody gotta lose - that is "natural law". Our liberal friends though don't see it that way. They believe that losers have been victimized in some fashion - either race or gender or socio-economic status. Oddly, this recognizes that life indeed isn't fair, but the liberal/progressive refuses to acknowledge that because it can all be solved by laws and rules and policies and regulations to make things more fair. And what happens is that life becomes more unfair to those who can't succeed.
We're stuck in a logic loop politically and economically. And frankly, I don't see how the nation is going to break out of it.
Finding the way out is the >entire< purpose of low taxes and the forced-smaller federal govt. When the continuum is liquid everything is moving --you can get in or out out of an eddy and make for a swirl or the main stream --it matters less and less your IQ or class or any of the squared checkboxes on the forms, because the whole river is flowing to a wide open sea, and the dam goverment can't contain it, stop it up, or constipate it (and then force it to be more regular and work out the stoppages with a pencil).
You're right, but the victim mind set is strong. I would also point out that this is a peculiar feature of the human condition - it's always somebody else who created the problem or somebody else who has the unfair advantage. Those who are the "perpetrators" of these victimizations recognize this tendency and take advantage of it.
...and right there is the heart of the darkness --the playing down of human nature rather than the playing up.
My mom used to say something she'd heard from childhood, that if you like someone he/she can do no wrong, but if you don't like that person, he/she can do no right.
That's not to be taken literally, because it's so broad, but what it means i think is --well, you could say Jesus was just trying to increase his own influence, and if you say it with a sneer, then you just changed a piece of the world.
But why does one age do that and another doesn't? Maybe it's the phlogiston life cycle, wherein our brain waves warm in fellowship, then go cold when our gigantic imaginations start assigning motives and discover the beast of the limbic brain ...oh yakety yak listin to the flailing wind bag --LOL
Um - that was the strategy the Republicans followed in 2012 and got badly beaten.
The Democrats talked nothing but social issues and abortion. Their convention resembled a NARAL meeting. Romney focused on economic issues, refused to talk about social issues in any meaningful way and therefore the Democrats' narrative carried the day.
The Lena Dunham ad was a hallmark. It was vulgar and degrading, but when Obama slyly referenced it in his acceptance speech, the audience howled with pleasure. Mostly young women, I would bet. If this is the culture we want, then let the left drive the discussion.
I don't see how our economic problems can be solved without addressing the decline in marriage and the rise in single parenthood - that would be households headed by women who choose to have children without ensuring a father will be present.
The left gets us to use their terms. As a dad. I've always had a problem with"single parent ". You are only a single parent if the spouse has died, run off, or in an institution. Otherwise the responsibility is still joint. The term used to be divorced parent, which is accurate and meaningfull ( or unmarked which also may apply). The use of euphemisms by the left such as pro-choice or diversity is their major weapon. Don't go along with it. Trends change
I agree with all of the above. Mrs. Barrister is correct in her observation of the current state of the state. For your reading info, which may give more insight as to what has gone. I will provide links at the bottom for your to review. In the meantime, I have only one ABSOLUTE that has to be done if any R is going to survive. Shut the . . . .. . .up about abortion. You lost that battle 40 years ago. In the meantime your stubborn adherense to that being the only thing that mattered has cost us a great nation. It is clear that a lot of Rs don't really believe in the rule of law when the law comes down in opposition to their beliefs. The demand to control or re-write the abortion law has cost us much more than they understand. In the meantime for your reading info I offer these links. Please read all of them or the story will not be nearly so clear.:
In 1999 we had this:
In 2001 there is this:
In 2012 we have:
And of course we have the wikipedia piece:
Talk about a confused Republican Party--I was told by a former R congressman that R Senator Slade Gorton never got in touch with the local R party headquarters until after the election which he lost to his daughter's friend (Cantwell-d). So much for integrity in Seattle.
I have a serious question in reply to this, because I absolutely agree with it. Even smart working women, getting their pay checks eviscerated by taxes, seem to buy the line that the 'evil Republicans/conservatives" are bringing down America.
Ok, avoid the news, check. We reached a tipping point and we're in the downward spiral
Here's the question:
If we reached a tipping point....we can avoid the news to stay in a better mood but...do we just give up otherwise? If we have kids, what do we tell THEM?
Should they stay here, and live in a land that is going to very potentially spiral down into the abyss, slowly but surely, as Britain has?
Do I want grandchildren to grow up as a hated minority, in a land of socialism....which might be no worse than the European model, but could be FAR worse as racism is thrown back on whites and anti-Semitism rears its ugly head as it is starting to do (obviously, we're Jewish)?
Is it all over and should we be looking for a nice place with more tolerance, if there is such a mythic spot, that might end up being safer down the road?
I really don't know WHAT to tell my kids, who are in college and high school. We are the children and grandchildren of immigrants, including refugees from the Czar and from Hitler, people who LOVED this country with the passion only someone who truly understood the LOSS of freedom could bring to it, and I love what this country has stood for, but I'm so sickened by what we are becoming and I want to DO something, but with this idea of a "tipping point"...and I sense it in my discussions with so many who I thought had half a brain...but now, I'm not so sure...good people, but so completely willing to deny what their eyes are telling them....maybe I'm the stupid one, but I want something better for my children or grandchildren (if I merit having them) growing up in a society of moochers and takers and...
What do I tell them? What should we do? I can stick my head in the sand for a few weeks until after the Christmas and New Year season, but do we permanently quit watching the news? It's been suggested to me to do that....
Any ideas welcome. I don't think there are any easy answers, but I've been thinking about this a LOT recently.
--i hear ya, Mo --heard every anguished word, and am walking the same anguishing path. Even the Jewish part, via daughter, in-laws, grandson.
Forgot to mention that it was McKay that destroyed Gonzales' career and made him look criminal for investigating the actions of AGs.
What to do. ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE. That is what they have been doing for years now. LEARN TO USE THE LANGUAGE!
Their command of rhetoric is classic. GET REAL JOURNALISTS out there on the internet. Get young people and teach them: WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW. Teach them about bias. Get websites up and running that deal with specific areas of concern.
MOST IMPORTANTLY. You must realize that "we the people" have seen how corrupt some corporations, some banks, and WS have become--stop protecting their criminal intentions!!!!! Allow for real transparency! Protecting corrupt businesses is as self defeating as putting abortion in the forefront of any discussion.
re Her somewhat defeatist view is to hunker down and just to take care of your family as best your can, and to stay away from the news.
That is pretty good advice.
I would add, be happy to have a roof over your ahead and enough to eat. The Government is intent on taking everything else away and the individual is powerless to stop them.
Your great Buddy! So are you trying to say what goes around comes around? We should not be afraid to do "community activism"! is that better?
I never meant to disagree, FW --only to mention the bias against organizing that exists (lamentably) on the right. The right's big enemy is always the collectivism, and the 'right' ideal politics is to simply stand as an exemplar of rugged individualism.
Not only that, but most of us are Celtic, and Celtics famously would rather die than be embarrassed by any community-organized public show of ''Gimme my rights!''. Celtics, over-emphasizing dignity in politics no doubt, feel like, 'well, then, i'll just outlast you, you'll come around as soon as you smarten-up'.
If i may may coin a term, 'latitude is attitude' --the Sun people hunt the open plains in groups, in raucous motion; the Ice people hunt from forest blinds, solitary or near so, silent and motionless.
Sun people have occasional droughts and can usually migrate away, Ice people have to plan for winter every year or get caught in it and remove their genes from the future.
Politics at the federal level --well it's a group activity rewarding energy and exuberance. Your Ice person can perch from a blind and wait for a shot, but the big commotion might just migrate away and leaving him hiding behind a boulder in his bearskin.
These patterns we just don't escape, because they are the underneath of fashion.
Look at Syria --it's an alphabet war. An alpha bet, which alphabet will win the bet, and be the alpha?
Is is it the Arabic (shared by Persia), is it the Hebrew (waiting between the halves of the Arabic), or how 'bout the Latin (Europe, USA), or the Cyrillic (Black Sea squadron steaming toward Tarsus flying as naval ensign the St Andrew's Cross, of the Romanov dynasty and the Scottish highlander)? And who is watching but the little finger, or maybe the thumb of the hand, and fading the bet from the east? The Kanji (Chinese/Japanese ideogram) alphabet. The five big players, the five big alphabets (alpha bets).
(And, you're great too!)