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, October 24. 2016
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Why just the GOP? Didn't Bernie's appeal overlap with Trump's. I am not sure that what is going on is ideological, unless it means the government working on behalf of all the people not just the Special, and International, and K Street Interests.
It isn't just the sneaky, behind the scenes underhandedness or the nepotism. It isn't just that the "Rules are for thee, but not for me." Hillary is the poster child. It isn't just about the top heavy, regulatory state serving the entrenched interests, while suppressing growth and American competitiveness.
In addition, it is a big cost shifting scam involving K Street, the government, media, even academia, foundations, NGOs etc. They get all the gain, but they offload the pain, by shifting the cost of their failures and misadventures onto the public. IOW they privatize the gain, but socialize the pain.
Whatever this is, it isn't capitalism.
"ordinary political compromise".
It may indeed be ordinary and common but should it especially on certain issues? Should we compromise on the constitution?
Where has ordinary political compromise gotten us? Take abortion for example. In the beginning we all or most all agreed that killing a late term baby was, well, murder. Imagine your own child removed from the womb all but his/her head and then the doctor sticks his surgical scissors through the back of the skull and sucks out his/her brains and when done pulls the dead baby out and lays it aside so it's organs can be sold by the very same people who lobby for more abortion. But through years of compromise that is indeed where we are today. What next? 30 days old? Two years old? Why not if you can birth them and kill them?
As for abortion I think G.K. Chesterton put it best. Why not let all the babies be born and then drown the ones we don't want? That puts the argument in terms that are hard to deny.
In politics, conservatives don't understand the art of compromise. Time and time again, statists compromise, yet still gain ground. Always, they make progress towards their long term goals. Always, conservatives give in on matters that are fundamental and call it compromise, and they lose ground.
I want a conservative political body that has a hundred year plan for making their goals become reality. The left is so far ahead of constitutionally-minded people in the art of change that I fear there is no hope.
Conservatives hold such an all-or-nothing attitude that we may actually end up with nothing. While the conservatives compromise, the leftists play chess.
Jack Walter: As for abortion I think G.K. Chesterton put it best. Why not let all the babies be born and then drown the ones we don't want?
Kinda misses the point about abortion, doesn't it? Let's take a wild guess; G.K. Chesterton is a man.
Jack Walter: In politics, conservatives don't understand the art of compromise. Time and time again, statists compromise, yet still gain ground.
You seem to be contrasting conservatism with statism. However, there are statists on the political right, just as there are statists on the political left.
What difference does it make if Chesterton is a man? Either way you are murdering the child. A human being! It points out exactly what abortion is. Hope it makes you uncomfortable about your so called choice.
B. Hammer: What difference does it make if Chesterton is a man?
Because it's obvious he doesn't understand abortion.
"B. Hammer: What difference does it make if Chesterton is a man?
Because it's obvious he doesn't understand abortion."
Late term abortion is murder pure and simple. What are you saying that women should be able to murder and a moral person should not even be allowed an opinion about it???
GoneWithTheWind: Late term abortion is murder pure and simple.
Nearly all late-term abortions are medically required or due to a fetal defect incompatible with life. Are you saying the woman in this case committed murder? Do you think she should be given the death penalty?
No. Chesterton understands with perfect clarity, what abortion is. It is you that refuses to accept what it is. You cavalierly wave it off as killing cells - discharging waste. Look at mammograms of first trimester babies. It is a human being. Unborn babies are not waste!
Jack Walter: I think G.K. Chesterton put it best. Why not let all the babies be born and then drown the ones we don't want?
B. Hammer: No. Chesterton understands with perfect clarity, what abortion is.
Except for, apparently, the whole pregnancy thing.
B. Hammer: You cavalierly wave it off as killing cells - discharging waste.
We've done no such thing. However, we did point out how Chesterton waved his hand about the whole giving birth thing. From his vantage, perhaps that's what he sees. Women get pregnant, then abracadabra, a baby.
Let's try a thought-experiment. There's a fire at the fertility clinic. Down one hallway, there's the cry of a toddler. Down the other hallway, there's the soft hum of an embryo cryopreservation unit that you know contains hundreds of frozen embryos. The fire is spreading quickly. Who do you save first? The toddler or hundreds of embryos?
Prioritizing difficult decisions in an emergency is an argument of absurdity. Of course I would save the single toddler first. But, I would also save a single toddler before attempting to save a hundred adults. That doesn't mean that one life is more sacred than another.
Chesterton wasn't proposing a piece of legislation. He's asking you whether abortion ends a life or not. If not, then it doesn't matter if you abort at one month in the womb or one month outside of it.
Jack Walter: Of course I would save the single toddler first.
Of course you would. Just about anyone would.
Jack Walter: He's asking you whether abortion ends a life or not. If not, then it doesn't matter if you abort at one month in the womb or one month outside of it.
It matters to the woman, clearly. Just as it clearly matters that you would save a single toddler over a hundred embryos — even if, especially if, it were your own toddler, and your own embryos.
^ Oh look, the robot is attempting a philosophical conundrum. Funny how dumb machines can't begin to comprehend real human abstracts, isn't it?
A childish argument, put forth by people who haven't got a logical one. There is no trump card of saying "But I actually have driven through New York, so I am right about traffic and you know nothing."
I'm contrasting their techniques for achieving long term political goals.
GoneWithTheWind: Take abortion for example. In the beginning we all or most all agreed that killing a late term baby was, well, murder.
In the "beginning" women died late in pregnancy if there was a problem. There was no viable alternative. Today, if there is a serious fetal defect or threat to the mother, abortion can be performed later in pregnancy. However, it is sometimes safer to induce early delivery, depending on the medical circumstances.
Under Roe, government can prohibit elective abortions in the third trimester, but nearly all third trimester abortions are medically required or due to a fetal defect incompatible with life.
Compromise! That is all these linguine spine republicans ever do! Why in the hell do you think we are in the disastrous situation that we find ourselves? Why is it that the right always needs to compromise? When does the left compromise? We have compromised ourselves right in to totalitarian Marxism.
Purges are the necessary consequences of the philosophical foundation of Marxian socialism. If you cannot discuss philosophical differences of opinion in the same way you discuss other problems, you must find another solution—through violence and power. This refers not only to dissent concerning policies, economic problems, sociology, law, and so on. It refers also to problems of the natural sciences. The Webbs, Lord and Lady Passfield, were shocked to learn that Russian magazines and papers dealt even with problems of the natural sciences from the point of view of the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. For instance, if there is a difference of opinion with regard to science or genetics, it must be decided by the "leader." This is the necessary unavoidable consequence of the fact that, according to Marxist doctrine, you do not consider the possibility of dissent among honest people; either you think as I do, or you are a traitor and must be liquidated.
von Mises, Ludwig (1952). Marxism Unmasked (LvMI)
Is it just me? I think it must be. I find the 18th and 19th century ideologies inadequate for the Information Revolution.
Unfortunately, there has been no "ordinary political compromise", since the Great Depression badly skewed politics toward Progressive-ism.
Using a yardstick for comparison, with the Left at 0 and the Right at 36, then ordinary compromise should occur around 17.5 to 19.5.
Instead the Left proposes a starting point at 30 and the Right has been "compromising" at 27, well left of "ordinary."
Yes, this. We don't know if the GOP is capable of reasonable compromise in national politics, because we haven't seen a reasonable offer in years. I think the experience in the states* is good evidence that the GOP rank-and-file can compromise in order to get things done.
*okay, some states.
Judas Maude, I suppose I once wondered what it would look like if a writer inspected the inside of his skull and proceeded to intone about it in a trainwreck of miscalculated and unassociated thoughts so odd that nine out of ten paragraphs elicited either laughter or a groan.
Now I know exactly what it looks like.
Owner if MSM will cover this with the same energy they covered Trump and his so called women
Republican compromise, a reality check
Conservatives who plan to vote for Donald Trump say that Hillary Clinton is so awful that anybody, even Trump, is preferable. Without getting into the comparative defects of Clinton and Trump (disclosure: I’m #NeverTrump), I think it’s useful to remind everyone of the ways in which having a Republican president hasn’t made all that much difference for the last fifty years, with Ronald Reagan as the one exception.
May 13, 2016 10:51 am | AEIdeas
Charles Murray has become unhinged over this election. We have marched steadily toward more governmental control for over 200 years while forgetting the warnings of the Founding Fathers about keeping our Constitutional Republic. Even Lincoln and Reagan approved some unconstitutional actions. It's time for a reboot and HRC is NOT the person to lead that effort.