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
Wednesday, June 29. 2016
Photo: If you know what that is called, you're old
Maybe too old to vote: Guardian: Old People Voting Against Climate or Brexit is “Intergenerational Theft”
Cormac McCarthy's death was greatly exaggerated
How to survive a snakebite in the US (h/t, Insty)
Don't Tell Me I Have to Go Organic
God and clown at Yale
Facebook's Zuckerberg Rejects Walls for Others, Builds One For Himself
Nobody does hysteria like the media
Elitist Rage With the Pro-Brexit Masses Echoes Longstanding British Suspicion of Democracy
I completely disagree with Williamson on that, on principle. However, abortion laws should be left to the states.
Supreme Court lets stand rule raising pay for home healthcare workers
The Question of Campaign 2016: Where Have All the Fascists Gone?
VDH: When have voters faced a choice between two such unpalatable, unprincipled candidates?
New York Times still peddles narrative Ben Rhodes told the paper is false
BETTER DEAD THAN RUDE — POLITICAL CORRECTNESS KILLS
Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe
Nobody believes it
Hillary Clinton Tweets Pro-Trump Message: DONALD TRUMP KNOWS HOW TO CREATE MANUFACTURING JOBS
US eyes Israeli short-range missile interceptor for Europe defence
Why Turkey Needed To Reconcile Its Ties With Israel
The Palestinian Authority's Crackdown on Journalists
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The week in Progressivism:
Gun Control - The will of the people must be done!
Brexit - The will of the people is wrong!
Apparently, you guys are not old. That's a linoleum dinette!
Right. Very late depression or early post WW2. I was a Hoover baby. Grew up pre-WW2, then later started married life on enameled wood. In our working class neighborhood, every house I ever went into as a boy had the same general type wood dinette set, typically with well chipped legs showing many many coats of enamel.
I think the dinette set is aluminum/Formica. Linoleum is the likely flooring under the dinette. Formica may have boomerangs in the design.
In our kitchen in the early '50's. It was kind of a yellow color and the linoleum table top had cigarette burns along the edge because everyone set their cigarette on the edge. The vinyl on the chair seats and backs also had burn holes and cuts from knives or other sharp objects. The stuffing that showed in the holes and the cuts was a fuzzy white/gray material. The restaurants/diners in town had the same tables and chairs...and some still survive.
Hey, you had our table! Looked just like the one in the picture but not so green.
You disagree with Williamson that abortion is murder? Or that Harry Blackmun is to blame for our seeing abortion as a constitutionally-protected right?
I believe that abortion, like most things, is a freedom right (11th Article), but one which can be impinged by state law.
A general principle, unrelated to abortion. Blackmun referred to privacy rights which of course exist.
that's a partial analysis at best and with regards to what the states can do, wrong.
the USSC considers abortion a constitutionally protected right, but it balances that right against the constitutional right of the baby to not be cut to pieces or burned out of the womb. this balancing act, or, more particularly, the fulcrum, is the key to an informed discussion.
the government makes the tipping point between these two interests -- right of woman to slice and dice vs. right of the human baby to live past a certain stage following conception. Before that point, the woman's right to carve her child into bloody bits is paramount, under the 11th, 14th, and the whatever basis the USSC concocted the federal constitutional right to privacy*. After that point, the right of the baby not to be cored out of his mother's womb with an auger and flushed into the sewer outweighs mom's right to abortion on demand whim.
I could, but won't, add the fact that you Christians believe that God infuses a soul into a baby at the time of conception (but correct me if I'm wrong, I am positive that's the orthodox view, but there are oh so many protestants with as many views are there are stars in the sky, to coin a biblical phrase).
so, if you would, explain to me what happens in the Magic Moment when mom's right to kill gives way to the baby's right to live.
* the right to privacy is commonly a state constitutional right. you should think of federal civil rights as a minimum standard for state-created civil rights, so that once the USSC declares the right of mom to tear her baby out of her womb and sell her remains to planned parenthood for pin money, the states can't really impinge.
A space ship lands on Endor. Crew members spend the next serval months setting up base camp. Structures are assembled from containers sent months before the crew landed. Once base is established the crew begins to explore their surroundings. They do some digging around, and bring various samples back to the lab for testing. Some items, even through the fog of the space helmet, get the discovery juices of the biology crew very excited.
Back at the lab the most promising of the samples are analyzed. Once exposed to the atmosphere of the safe, lab examination hoods, something very remarkable happens: the samples begin to divide! The divisions begin slowly at first, but soon they grow and divide at geometrical proportions. Closer examination reveals a blue print, very much similar to human DNA. However, after some length of time, varying for each sample and for some un-know reason the process stops.
Once news of this reaches earth, how will it be described? I think it would certainly be described as life! Did the crew give the cells life? Did they kill the life?
Catholicism teaches that the soul is given at the moment of conception.
“The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life.”
BH, what you have to understand about our gentle Donny BJ is that he's so very steeped in law that he can't comprehend thought without it.
Therefore you can't hypothesize. It's just not valid. Likewise, original structural principle. Unless managed by the many logical holes in the great subsequent prophylactic of State, it simply cannot be. Donny BJ carries MF's own internal stare decisis, his gift to MF and the globe.
Constitution? There is no stinkin' Constitution. The Framers aimed to create law, you rubes, that greatest of wholly specialized asses.
From there it's all rinsing and repeating.
My 1988 Britannica states on human reproduction: "A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg." That's when human life begins, and it's not clear to me when a mother's right to destroy her young usurps the right of the child to its life. Either infanticide is legal, or it's not--and it shouldn't be if we place any value on human life.
My youngest sister was 12 when Mom had my brother, her 5th child. The doctors all thought my brother was a high risk pregnancy and should be aborted, no, killed. They pressured my parents quite a bit, but they resisted. My brother is one of the best people I know, and the world is a better place because he's in it.
I can't see how a "right" to kill one's own comports with any right to privacy.
Yes, pregnancies can complicate one's life (ask all the un-wed Moms out there), but the solution is not to kill children.
The solution is to stop thinking of sex as a game, and more as a loving act that regularly produces an infinitely worthwhile image of God, a newly created child.
That's more challenging, but isn't meeting challenges what makes life more interesting and exciting?
"I can't see how a 'right' to kill one's own comports with any right to privacy."
that's because you're sane.
"Byron York: Polls are telling Donald Trump the truth, but he's not listening"
Byron York? He of the National Review's "Never Trump" faction? That Byron York???
Posh! Never mind! Another of Byron's ploys to justify the sneaky goings-on behind the scenes in an attempt to displace Trump! The internals of the poll he refers to, which shows Hitlery up by 12 points, clearly establishes significant over-sampling of Dems, oddly in the same amount of Hill's purported "lead".
Byron's conclusions could be more dishonest, but not by much!!!
Quinnipiac's latest poll issued this morning, in fact shows a dead heat as do other polls in battleground states.
How about that, Byron? (crickets chirping)
The latest Quinnipiac poll tells me that something is wrong with all of the polling we've been getting. How does one poll show Hillary ahead by something like 10 points only a few days ago, and another show them in a dead heat?
So my thought now is: ignore the polls, think back to the primaries and how wrong everyone was, and just vote.
Trump will win. Hillary is a terrible candidate. Trump has his flaws, but they are so minor in comparison to Hillary's. Most people will go into the voting booths with this in mind.
Should a judge that doesn't believe in the law of the land, i.e. the Constitution, be allowed to retain his position? I sure don't think so. He should be impeached.
I remember when someone who pledged allegiance to another country or political system that as part of its doctrine, threatened to overtake the United States was not allowed in the country, much less allowed to hold political office. All sorts of tap dancing took place when our science community allowed entry to those who ran programs for Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R., but access to their knowledge reigned. When JFK ran for office, many discussed the role of the Vatican and whether or not it would interfere with the Presidency and freedom of religion.
Now we have a President who completely ignores the laws of the land, a presidential candidate who has broken more laws than most know exist AND since she was First Lady of Arkansas, judges who make up laws as they go along or rewrite them to serve their purposes, and registered Communists serving in the administration, Congress and other positions of authority. Shari'a is accepted as law in some jurisdictions when much of it is blatantly anti-Constitutional and, in fact, declares Islam the sole arbiter of all life on earth, thus those who believe in another religion or the U.S. Constitution are infidels.
And I'm told I'm not open minded. Geez. Let's hope not.
Over the last 100 years or more, our Bill of Rights and Constitution have been pared away -- much likes many carrot shavings -- until we are seriously at risk for becoming just another feudal state run by a committee of elitists who self-appoint themselves to life terms.
"Over the last 100 years or more, our Bill of Rights and Constitution have been pared away"
I'm sure you really don't want to return to pre-Miranda, pre-Brown v Board of Education, pre-Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the land of Jim Crow.
Absolutely! You simply cannot uphold your oath (as if such oaths mean anything at all to a progressive) if you deny the applicability of the Constitution.
This "judge" and I use that term in its lightest form, should immediately resign! Or be subjected to wearing a "Liberty Jacket." Or use of a 10 foot lamp post, a 3 foot rope and a 4 foot stool---some assembly required.
Re: Reality doesn’t matter when you’re crusading for ‘social justice’
You would think that if 'Suzy Mattressback' had really been raped, she wouldn't carry around a mattress to make it easier for the next guy to rape her. But then you would think that if warmists were really concerned about their carbon footprint, they wouldn't jet all over the world just to accept accolades for fretting about their carbon footprint. And if the left was really concerned that we lived in a rape culture, they wouldn't demand that men (who 'feel like a woman that day) be allowed into changing facilities and bathrooms of young girls and women and they wouldn't be screaming to import people who belong to a religion that apparently calls for the stoning of women who have been raped.
I read an article recently about the shift in education from learning facts to critical thinking. Now kids know no facts and have no aptitude for any sort of critical thinking. Only a government program could fail that miserably and still be in existence.
"Why is Europe defense an American problem?"
A) Because we don't want to have to invade Europe to save them again.
B) Forgedaboutem, if they will not defend themselves then let them wallow in their misery.
Paul L. Quandt
The Question of Campaign 2016: Where Have All the Fascists Gone?
As reprehensible as racist groups like BLM, La Raza and these white nationalists are the post really missed the mark on what happened in Sacramento. The hated white nationalist were the peaceful group and the left wing liberal wonderful and loving BAMN were the ones carrying 2x4's and bashing people in the head and kicking unconscious people. So even though the oft misused label of fascist was inappropriately misused again one still must ask; who were the fascist? Who used violence to prevent free speech?
But no worries, I'm sure the law enforcement and justice system is on top[ of this and indictments and perp walks are coming soon.
GoneWithTheWind: left wing liberal wonderful and loving BAMN
"By any means necessary" is the fundamental definition of extremism. When you justify means for an end, even when those ends are for greater equality or greater good, then the ends will often be determined by the means, and not by the goal. Even neo-fascists have the right to peaceably assemble.
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead
Ooh, and they are going to be the violent attacking ones any day now, aren't they?
I have not read any statements from you condemning leftist violence at recent political events. Therefore, your readiness to accuse those who state they will defend others, and passing along an opinion speculating that they will bring more "pop" next time, reveals your prejudices rather starkly.
Assistant Village Idiot: Ooh, and they are going to be the violent attacking ones any day now, aren't they?
We were just answering the question, Where Have All the Fascists Gone? Apparently, some of them are volunteering to work security for Donald Trump supporters at the Republican convention.
As for who initiated the violence, a lot of video is available, and the the police should be able to successfully investigate what happened and bring the perpetrators to justice — regardless of their political positions.
So by "fascist" you mean those who would commit violence against a current candidate?
Jess1: So by "fascist" you mean those who would commit violence against a current candidate?
Um, no. Fascism is a specific strain of radical authoritarian nationalism.
The definition of fascism has changed. it was originally a socialist political system where private ownership of companies and the means of production were controlled by government. Over the years the socialist objected to this and wanted to "clean up" their history and began the effort to transmogrify the meaning to something they could lay at the feet of the right/conservatives. All of the left wing news readers would consistently refer to actions by real or imagined "far right" groups as "fascists". But fascism is like Nazism and communism simply a version of socialism. It is left wing it is what Bernie dreams about when he dreams, it is what Hugo Chavez brought to Venezuela and it is what Obama and Hillary are trying to bring to America.
GoneWithTheWind: The definition of fascism has changed. it was originally a socialist political system where private ownership of companies and the means of production were controlled by government.
While fascism was influenced by national syndicalism, fascism is not primarily an economic system, and fascists adopted many different forms of economic policy. The key philosophy was subjugation of the individual to the state under a strong leader, and the belief that violence was the ultimate expression of the nationalist impulse.
GoneWithTheWind: Over the years the socialist objected to this and wanted to "clean up" their history and began the effort to transmogrify the meaning to something they could lay at the feet of the right/conservatives.
Fascism was always authoritarian and nationalist. Nor does being on the extreme right mean that fascism is "conservative". Rather, it's radical reactionary. As any review of scholarly literature, media, or general usage show, the redefinition is recent and from the political right. It's part of the truthiness movement that has led to American Trumpism.
Benito Mussolini, 1935: "Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."
Here is a little old school, brown shirt fascism for you Zach:
No, you weren't "just answering the question." You changed the subject slightly to ground you like better, a tactic you seem to do automatically. I suspect you actually don't notice the changes, and make the adjustment seamlessly, which accounts for your inability to ever acknowledge even a 1% accuracy on your disputants party or a 1% error ohn yours.
You really don't see, do you? And yet you are quite sure that it is all the others who are out of step. Please consider for a few minutes what you would think in real life, not internet space, about a person in a crowd who could never acknowledge even the slightest truth in a person who disagreed with you on an issue.
You change the subject slightly, comment by comment, in most discussions. If you were offering these things as counterbalance (a legitimate tactic), as here, you would say it differently. The assertion is that the fascists reside primarily on the left at present, and the violence and threats to date support that. You answer by finding a few people who have done nothing but mutter dark things and mind-reading what they might do - and you think you have refuted the assertion. If you don't get that this is a significant failure of logic, then the rest of us aren't really sure what we should reply with.
You've caught on. ZBot - named that for the very reason you outline - isn't interested in objectivity. It's programmed to craft diversionary narrative.
This we call sucking all the air out of the room.
Regard appropriately as you engage. Or rather, consider disengaging as you regard appropriately...
Assistant Village Idiot: [i]The assertion is that the fascists reside primarily on the left at present, and the violence and threats to date support that. [/b]
Nearly all political scientists place fascism on the political right due to its advocacy of national and racial supremacy, rejection of liberalism, and martial government ruled by a strong leader.
The LA Times references a comment from Brian Levin, director of Cal State San Bernardino’s Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism (which I suppose are a bunch of left wing haters like those at the Southern Policy Law Center - which is also used as a source in the article). Levin:
said the event seemed to follow a strategy used frequently by white power groups in recent years. The groups will often announce a rally, seemingly bait counter-demonstrators into violence...
Levin's prediction of violence came true and according to one CHP officer, the counter demonstrators started the violence:
“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said CHP Officer George Granada, a spokesman for the agency’s Protective Services Division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”
And then the article brings up what they say is a similar incident in Anaheim with the KKK where people on both sides were stabbed. Of course, the counter protesters started it:
During the Anaheim rally, police also said the Klansmen who stabbed demonstrators did so in self-defense.
I'm not interested in defending the skinhead group or the KKK, nor am I interested in anything they have to say, but it sure seems easy to goad those counter protesters into violence. So easy that one has to wonder, in spite of all the people who say the KKK or skinheads are "violent", just who exactly is the violent group.
Levin's comments could have been used to describe the Nazis who marched through a Jewish neighborhood in full Nazi regalia in Skokie in the '70s, but there was no violence then.
It seems pretty obvious who the violent ones were at least in these two cases. It also seems that the vast majority of political violence in the US is from the left.
The sudden pearl-clutching over intergenerational theft amuses me no end. This from young people who've spent 90-100% of their lives living completely off older people, and are just now barely beginning to find out what it's like to support themselves, let alone a new younger generation.
The other amusing thing is the wide disparity in voter turnout by age group. If these angry young people had bothered to vote, they'd have won the referendum.
Color me skeptical of that "report", as all of them seem to circle back to one yougov.com (yes, that's the same Dem. advisory group) poll that they didn't even push at first - likely due to it's questionable methodology...
It's likely that the "age breakdown" of this vote is as mythical as a unicorn.
A third thing that amuses me is the likelihood that, when the callow young voters get old enough for their cohort to display a decent voter turnout percentage, they'll have turned more conservative in their views.
re VDH: When have voters faced a choice between two such unpalatable, unprincipled candidates?
Pretty good piece by VDH.
I agree with him that both candidates are pretty awful.
My expectations of a Trump presidency are very low and I fear he may make matters much worse. With HRC it is a certainty things will get much worse.
But the bottom line is that HRC is a serial criminal while Trump is not. My conscience leaves me no choice. I can't stand thought of a known outlaw in the White House. I will have to vote against that happening.
Please watch the whole of Trump's speech on the economy and trade from yesterday. All of it is well footnoted, if you are worried about that. Don't be afraid of Trump. He has been consistent on America, the economy and trade for decades. He is a successful businessman who knows how to run a large operation and save as much money as possible to turn a profit.
I want you to go into the voting booth with confidence when you vote for Trump. No fear!
Let me help you out here. You either prefer to preserve what is unique about America or you don't , you either prefer to preserve the Bill of Rights or you don't, you either prefer to preserve American sovereignty, or you don't. I never thought this day would come, but this is an election between Makers vrs Takers. There is only one candidate responding to the concerns of the Makers, so choose.
‘When have voters faced a choice between two such unpalatable, unprincipled candidates?’ In today’s thinking: Well, it's never happened in my lifetime, which means it's never happened.
"Maybe too old to vote: Guardian: Old People Voting Against Climate or Brexit is 'Intergenerational Theft'"
The Guardian doesn't seem to have any difficulty with massive government debts to fund all manner of bizarre and trendy social programmes though.
If spending the next generation's taxes today ain't intergenerational theft, what is?
I used to subscribe to and read the Guardian, if by that you mean the Manchester Guardian. They were communists then and I doubt that they have gotten any more rightish in the past 35 years.
From the article: " Coupling nature with motherhood, however, can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretakers of children)."
Ok. Let's explain it this way: We are mammals.
Or to reword it: We are freakin mammals.
Or in case you missed it: We are mammals, dummy.
Evolution does not give a damn about political correctness or what gender you 'iderntify with'. In every species of mammal , the females are either the primary or the sole caretaker of the young. We're a bit more flexible, and in a pinch genders can somewhat work through the problems, however 65 million years of mammalian evolution does not get erased by some screwball ideology, even if it's coming from the president.
[It's odd because not long ago, feminists were that breast feeding was one of the inherent joys of motherhood, of being a woman. That sure turned around fast.]