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
Monday, January 19. 2015
Monday morning links
Martin Luther King -- Under the Liberal Bus
A tour of a ballistic sub
John (Junior) Gotti on growing up son of mob boss John Gotti: memoir
Ten people killed, churches and non-Muslim-owned businesses attacked in Niger over Charlie Hebdo cartoons
How to get rid of Moose
Mommy has a penis
SECOND AMENDMENT NEWS: The Innovative Taurus Curve
Looks like a stapler
In Praise Of Price Discovery—–The Market Is Off Its Lithium:
Mastodon bones discovered in local family’s backyard
Joel Klein on the NYC School System: "The Most Complex Bureaucracy in America" - The former schools chancellor on the wisdom of shutting down "perpetual failure factories."
As the number of students going to law school drops dramatically, law
Feminist Author @PennyRed Quotes Bolshevik Commissar’s Anti-Love Advice
It's not news that socialism wants your primary relationship to be with the state
Professor quits because there are too many conservatives on campus
"GOVERNMENT” IS JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR THE THINGS THAT WE SCREW UP TOGETHER
Obama to Seek Billions in New Taxes on Investments and Inheritance
Ted Cruz: Loose Cannon or Libertarian Reformer?
The Elephant in the Room: Unfunded Liability for State and Local Government Employees
California Spending Big to Halt School Reform Lawsuit Backed by Republicans and the ACLU
Boston: …“We are a diverse group of LGBTQA, white, pan-Asian and Latin@
About 1 Million Kids Are Now Eating Dinner at School
Rereading Regensburg - Questions that need to be asked about Islam were asked by Pope Benedict nearly ten years ago.
Jindal's Brilliant Take on Radical Islam
Aussie official: “Go fuck yourself you communist turd.”
Iran doesn’t hesitate to use a human pawn as nuclear negotiations go on
Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam
Not All Religions Are Peaceful: Charlie Hebdo and Cultural Relativism
ISIS Throws Gay Men From Rooftop, Stones Woman
Christians Burned Alive: Where’s the Outrage?
Germany’s Anti-Islamist Movement PEGIDA Cancels Rally After ISIS Death Threats
Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:55 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
American Thinker: Doesn’t that mean they were calling Martin Luther King Jr. a racist?
King was expressing an aspiration, not a policy of action. He strongly supported affirmative action, and programs to provide work for the poor.
Larry Kudlow: Jindal's Brilliant Take on Radical Islam: I want to know who in the Muslim community in the United States has said this. Which leaders?
Here's a few.
Most of those are pretty good. A few retreat into the "I condemn terrorism no matter who's perpretrating it (wink, wink)" territory. But I appreciate the link. It seems there are Muslim leaders with both ethics and courage, and I'm glad to see them get a little publicity at a time when they're in danger of being drowned out by the majority message of "what did they expect."
One wonders how much better off the country would be if these obscure groups were simply ignored or ridiculed?
Today we celebrate the life of one of modern history's greatest champions of the Natural Law, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
In his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Dr. King provided the following definition, and the moral necessity of adhering to the Natural Law:
"One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
You can read the entire letter on the Human Rights and Natural Law web site...
Re Benghazi investigation:
Can you say whitewash?
The truth is not welcome in DC if it embarrasses or uncovers wrong doing by our ruling masters.
From the article:
Gen. Vallely told WND that he believes Gowdy “has received much pressure not to get to the truth, and we are now coming to the conclusion that there is no longer any intention in Washington, by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, to get to the truth.”
“An honest investigation into Benghazi would prove treasonous acts at the very top of the White House and the State Department, and a continuing cover-up in Congress that now involves the Republican leadership and especially House Speaker John Boehner,” Vallely said
The commission has found evidence that there was a stand-down order given to the Annex Security Guards at the CIA Annex after the attack began at the Special Mission Compound, one mile away, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith were killed.
Republican leaders are covering up the White House’s offenses, some commission members believe, because the White House made them aware of the gun-running and they gave assent to it.
I cannot imagine the cognitive dissonance that a liberal must have to support affirmative action in the name of equality. Should the NBA and NFL support affirmative action because they are essentially "segregated"? Quota's for football players and basketball players. Should the government set up affirmative action for the nursing profession which is 95% female? Talk about a glass ceiling. How about a massive campaign to make the nursing profession not so sexist and allow only male students to attend nursing school. Far fetched you say! Well how about something t thenthenhe government has done in the name of fixing a sexist system: provide loans and grants for school only for men. That would go a long way to correct the inbalance in gender in colleges. What harm would it do to lower the test requirements for men to be admitted to nursing schools? After all we lower the physical requirements for women to become firemen or military. When I was a boy thinkingabout becoming a fireman the standard was that a fireman had to be able to life an unconcious 180 lb man onto his shoulder and step out a second story window and carry the man down the ladder. That made perfect sense to me. I assume male firefighters still have to meet that standard or something about as physically challenging. But imagine the thought process that demands "affirmative action" to put people into a job or a college in spite of their inability or in preference to a "level playing field". Let's call affirmative action what it is: bigotry, racism, discrimination based on race, gender or sexual preference. How does it help a black man who wants to be a doctor if you create a system where EVERYONE KNOWS he "probably" got through medical school because he was black? Do you want to have your bypass operation performed by a surgeon who couldn't get into medical school and couldn't pass it if he got in but because of his race or her gender they are now about to cut you open? How does someone fight against racism all their life and then come out in favor of affirmative action?
GoneWithTheWind: I cannot imagine the cognitive dissonance that a liberal must have to support affirmative action in the name of equality.
"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
I think King was in error promoting affirmative action. He was a great man and his fight for equal rights was entirely within the promise of the Constitution rather than trying to change it. In fact, that was his argument - that the promise of the Constitution was not being fulfilled. I would argue that affirmative action is counter to the equality before government and the law promised by the Constitution (though his frustration with the inequality at the time can be easily understood). In addition, the history of affirmative action in other cultures has lead to the sort of divisions he abhorred and that I would argue we have today. In the later years, King was under pressure to lean toward the political left and in some cases he accepted that influence.
I favor what a former slave, Fredrick Douglass, said:
What should we do with the Negro? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall. . . . And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!
A sentiment that was echoed by other former slaves such as Booker T. Washington.
It doesn't matter who said it...that's one of the lamest analogies I've ever read.
I've always thought affirmative action had a legitimate role in forcing doors open temporarily to allow a despised class access long enough to prove itself. I can't reconcile myself entirely to a past in which women and Jews were denied access to the best schools, for instance.
But it's an awfully dangerous tool in the hands of a society that doesn't care about merit and fixates entirely on making sure each interest group is guaranteed its precise slice of the pie. We don't seem able to do a good job using affirmative action to ensure access without drifting into demanding lifelong rewards.
Brandeis has too many conservatives? Would that be three, or four, or maybe just one? Inquiring minds want to know.
35 things wrong with America: #s 4, 10, 13, 19, 21, 24, and the guy who wrote this list. Sure I'm judgmental; I have the mentality for judging.
Ted Cruz: I'm thinking he's a tight cannon, firing for effect, as well as some demonstration shots.
Elephant in the room: One reason I like Scott Walker.
California schools suit: I'm amazed the ACLU is suing the state.
I found the "35 things wrong" list really creepy. I don't want any more contact with the guy who put it together.
Today is the day we celebrate Martin Luther Day, and remember the accomplishments of Martin Luther in the Reformation. I have on a Lutheran polo shirt right now and will hoist a beer to the gentleman later today.
" it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up"
So who is this 300 year old white man? This is going to suprise you but every black person alive today in the U.S. was never a slave, and every white person alive today was never a slave owner. If somehow you could penalize the actual slave owner and use this to reward the actual slave I would be in your camp. But that ship sailed a very long time ago. All you can do now is penalize someone who never did anything wrong to a black person and reward a black person who never was wronged by a white person. In other words all you can do to meet your objective is to discriminate against white people and give "free stuff" to black people.
This actually made more sense to most people in 1965, some believedit was actually possible to fix this with a "hand up". But here it is 50 years later and we have increased this racist program 1000% and there is no end in sight. It is the avowed goal of the neo-racist to commit this racist crime (often euphemistically called affirmative action) forever... FOREVER...
Ironically there really are real living humans who have been harmed, many seriously harmed by racism. They are mostly whites and mostly men. When do we begining the reparations for this 50 year serial crime? When do we begin 50 years of affirmative action for white males for the blatant discrimination committed against them by our government?