Classic Steyn, commenting on Sandra Fluke at the DNC:
America is so broketastically brokey-broke that one day, in the grim future that could be, society may even be forced to consider whether there is any meaningful return on investment for paying a quarter-million bucks to send the scions of wealth and privilege to school until early middle-age to study Reproductive Justice.
As the saying goes, real the whole thing.
While it’s tempting to talk about the content of the dust-up at the DNC today, it’s actually more interesting to note the style.
Under criticism from Republican challenger Mitt Romney(After liberals tried desperately to hijack the platform to say what they really think), Democrats abruptly rewrote the day-old document to insert a reference to God and to declare that Jerusalem “is and will remain the capital of Israel.” Some(A majority of) delegates objected loudly, but Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, presiding in the largely-empty hall, ruled them outvoted. White House aides said Obama had personally ordered the changes.
So remember this, fellow Marxists: your dear leader is first and foremost a dictator. You only get to heckle God, Jews and guns when he says it’s okay.
Some libertarian-leaning bloggers are making hay over this:
This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture. (my emphasis)
If you want to understand what Rick Santorum is talking about, you have to understand this definition of liberty:
From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.
I expect someone who espouses the views of the apostle of objectivism would disagree with it. I’m okay with that, because I’m Catholic and choose to listen to Peter. If it means Santorum can’t keep libertarians in the fold (should he win the nomination), I guess we’ll lose in November. I wish that weren’t the case, but I’m not going to follow a lie, especially for nothing but the hope of winning an election.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that this post at The Corner mentions the three candidates I find least offensive in a field of lesser-evils, and my own “for the moment” preference holds the primary place in the discussion, what’s most interesting to me is the comments.
Perhaps I’m biased, but it does seem to me that much of the disdain for Sen. Santorum revolves around his faith-formed social conservatism. Could we go farther with that and say it’s more the faith and not so much the social conservatism?
As for the content of the post, at least one other person is thinking about who “this season’s Huckabee” might be, and darned if it isn’t another one of those same three.
I’m a conservative, so I don’t have a problem arguing that “you can’t legislate morality” is a ridiculous canard. The Left sows this idea constantly, all the while pushing more and more of their secular religions on us. (No, that’s not an oxymoron – think about global warming as an example.)
But there is an extreme you can go in the other direction that makes me uncomfortable, and this Catholic tends to get nervous when Evangelical Pastor Mike Huckabee starts talking. Let him stay on Fox and preach his gospel, and we’ll keep looking for a president.
Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has been elected to the presidency of the the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. For those who are not Catholics, this is a big deal for traditionalist and orthodox Catholics, not to mention political conservatives.
The vote makes Archbishop Dolan the most visible face of the church in the United States. It also suggested that the bishops were seeking a powerful and reliably orthodox voice to reassert the church’s teaching in the court of public opinion and to disarm critics who insist that the bishops have lost their moral authority as a result of their role in the sexual abuse scandals.
For the first time, the bishops overlooked tradition and passed over a vice president who was running for the presidency, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson. Bishop Kicanas represents the more liberal “social justice” tradition of the American church and is known for advocating dialogue between Catholic liberals and traditionalists. Archbishop Dolan is considered a moderate conservative.
Archbishop Dolan also suggested that he would not countenance other Catholic leaders and organizations when they take public positions that contradict the bishops. That is what happened this year when some groups representing Catholic hospitals and nuns came out in support of the health care overhaul bill, despite the bishops’ staunch opposition.
“We’re pastors and teachers,” Archbishop Dolan said of the bishops’ role, “not just one set of teachers in the Catholic community, but the teachers.” (emphasis in original)
Archbishop Dolan is the first President of the USCCB elected over the sitting Vice-President of the Conference.
In an even more surprising move, the vice-presidency did not go to a bishop similar to Bishop Kicanas, as a tradition favoring balance would have it. Instead, the post went to someone possibly even more strident in the culture wars than Archbishop Dolan, though perhaps not as well-known – Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville. As if that wasn’t enough, the runner-up for vice-president was none other than Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. Archbishop Chaput is a personal favorite of mine, who once said in reference to the adulation surrounding President Obama: “in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs.”
After providing cover for Democrats for so long, the liberal-appeasing USCCB seems to be righting itself.
Was that Our Lord, or Marx?
Take the following with a grain of salt, considering I’m doing very little blog-reading lately. First, for the dirt, check out:
and as usual, don’t forget to read the comments, both at Ace’s and the blogs he links to.
I was a big fan of Charles Johnson and LGF for a long time. I admired the fact that a passive liberal was seeing a little bit of the light when it came to politics, and a lot of the truth in the fight against jihadism. Heck, when it came to the latter, Charles was one of the first to try rallying support for the war using a blog. LGF was really the first blog I’d ever seen, and along with Best of the Web, I gave credit to Johnson in the dedication post as being an inspiration for this blog.
But like Dean Esmay, LGF has taken a few left turns that I can’t say I’ve admired. I parted ways with Dean following his drift back to the political middle during the most recent presidential election. In Johnson’s case, I’ve been trying to ignore the fact that the anti-jihadist is now on a crusade against ALL religion by tarring everything in sight with a label that defines it as either anti- or pro- in relation to the most burning debate in America today… creationism.
Creationism? Are you kidding me?
I don’t want this post to devolve deeply into that discussion, so let me just say this much: I believe in God, and I believe He created everything. And I believe that His methodology for creating everything probably involved something a little more complex than the snapping of giant omnipotent Fingers. St. Anselm said that God is that being greater than which none can be conceived, so the theory we call “evolution” is probably a lame oversimplification of how it all came to be. But notice that “oversimplification” implies it’s not untrue.
Put more succinctly, with respects to Heinlein: God is Deep. You can’t grok Him.
With that in mind, I do not fear those who attempt to teach “Intelligent Design”. I agree with their overall premise, but the details of their methodology are just plain silly. C’mon guys, you lost this fight 80 years ago in Tennessee, and you’re sounding like those who insist on calling it “The War of Northern Agression.” The South will NOT rise again – at least not under your terms. It’s over. Find a different tack.
That all said, Charles is paranoid and more than a little bigoted against those of us who care to respect an Intelligent Designer. When he goes after Glenn Beck and belittles those friends of mine attempting to hold the IRS at bay with nothing but bags of tea, he’s just too far gone in misunderstanding who the enemy is and what the fight is about.
So, I’m sorry to say, LGF is being reassigned to “Copperhead” status. The separating of the wheat and the chaff moves on….
Addendum: I just noticed that when I did the site redesign and added links to places I never would have linked before had it not been for The Civil War Blogroll, I missed a few people that I had to de-link years ago. Daily Dish has been put into Blockade Runners, and Hot Air has been added to Copperheads.
If you are a supporter of “a woman’s right to choose” please read this article. I ask this of you because, once you have read it, I need to ask you a few questions. If you are not supporter of abortion, please pass this along to any friends or associates that may be “pro-choice” and have them answer the questions.
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.
Williams’ lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby’s umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
OK… now the questions: 1. Does this story bother you? 2. Is the clinic owner guilty of murder? 3. Do you believe Sycloria Williams has the moral standing to sue the clinic? Answer these questions in your heart, but – whether anyone is around you or not – please verbalize your answer, so that the words become real. And after each, ask yourself if the words coming out of your mouth match what you feel in your heart.
1. If you answered “Yes” that this story did bother you, an avowed pro-choicer, then I must ask why? Sycloria Williams walked into that clinic and paid $1,200 to terminate a pregnancy – and that is exactly what happened. Perhaps, you are disturbed by the manner in which the termination occurred? Again I must ask why? Oh, wait… that’s a inconvenient question. We’ll move on for now.
2. I assume, again since you are an avowed pro-choicer, that you believe the clinic owner is not guilty of murder, because in your view, abortion is not murder. Right? But the baby was actually born – she had air in her lungs – she was alive! Isn’t causing the death of a living, breathing child … Oops! Another inconvenient question. Next!
3. As for whether Ms. Williams has the moral standing to sue the clinic, I’ll bet you are really conflicted on that one. On the one hand, you probably agree that she is the victim of a morally bankrupt and evil corporation’s malpractice and greed. Ergo, she does have the moral high ground to claim that the clinic didn’t kill the fetus she was carrying before it became a baby. On the other hand, it’s an abortion clinic… a Temple of modern liberalism that frees women from the shackles of motherhood. Ergo, their moral authority is sacrosanct and unassailable. My oh my, what is a progressive to do with a Morton’s Fork like that?
Questions too tough? Need help? Maybe you could look to popular opinion for an answer. After all, isn’t that what the liberal politicians do?
“The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage,” said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. “People all over the country are just aghast.”
Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.
“It really disturbed me,” said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. “I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.”
Does that help?
I believe that if you really answered those questions honestly, the story really did bother you (though you may not understand exactly why), you do think that poor baby was murdered (or allowed to die), and that as horrific as the experience must have been for her, Sycloria Williams has no right suing a clinic for doing exactly what she really wanted – “getting rid of” the baby she was carrying. Combine that with the fact that the National Organization for Women want’s you to help keep (women) from going to these types of clinics (would that be Abortion clinics?) and you’ll find that what it comes down to is that you who are pro-abortion really just want the right to kill what the rest of us consider to be a baby, before you start thinking about it as a living being.
The Inconvenient Truth here is that the science and technology you prize above all else keeps moving the line you draw, between when it is a lump of cells and when it is a living being, closer and closer to the point of conception. And I believe that while your intellect may be able to handle that, your conscience cannot. As a progressive thinker, the type of person that often personifies animals, plants, and even the Earth itself (Gaia), you must have real trouble not personifying an embryo – which, if left alone, would have an excellent chance of actually becoming a real person. I think your intellect may even be betraying you, because you have to know that at one point you – your living, breathing, thinking, caring, thriving, progressive self – was just a “lump of cells,” and look how far you have come. You must wonder if any person, given the chance, and with help from progressives like yourself, couldn’t grow and thrive in the same way – no matter how initially unwanted or unloved.
Well, here’s something else to wonder about; what if one of those millions of babies that were disposed of was the next Jonas Salk, Albert Einstein, or would have invented the cure for AIDS or invented an alternative fuel to replace our dependence on oil? Tired old pro-life argument, you say? Ok… what if, now that you approach your golden years, one of those discarded lumps of cells was around to love you, call you mom, give you grandchildren who would think the world of you, and help take care of you as your body and mind failed? Ever think about that?
You know, for a bunch of folks known as the “Free Love” generation, you have just about guaranteed that as you grow old, many of you will do so alone. How profoundly sad.
I got this essay in an email the other day. It starts like this:
Who would have thought that the opening of the brand new Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) in Washington, D.C. would be divinely ordained?
It certainly came as news to one particular Senator with a strong aversion to such a can of worms, Jim DeMint of South Carolina. In a recent statement, the Senator came down hard on the CVC, particularly the displays therein which, he claims, “are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history.”
One prominently engraved quote really has Mr. DeMint and other conservatives fuming. As it reads:
“We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.”
So, the Capitol is a temple? Last I checked it was a very expensive American Neoclassical office building. And last I heard the Constitution was one of the nation’s most important political documents–which many in our current political establishment regard as a cumbersome hindrance rather than an “oracle” to be consulted.
Since it seems like so many people I respect on the ‘net tend to drift into the atheistic camps of Ayn Rand Objectivism, I thought it would be interesting just to post this and say: “Discuss”. Hopefully one or two of you are still reading.
After killing Lupins and collecting coconuts on Florina Beach, I headed over to Fark this evening to get some silly headlines. I’m sure that one of these days they’re going to create a whole new website just for the Florida tag in the same manner that they did for another of their famous tags. Headline: “Walton County to alter Nativity scene.”
The County Commission decided this week to include secular items such as a snowman to the display after Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent the county a letter in July claiming that the creche is unconstitutional
Great. Just what this country needed. As if the ACLU wasn’t bad enough. Now we have these guys. Had I not been up since 4:20 this morning, I would e-mail them this (scroll down to the “On the 3d of October.”)
Happy birthday to me.
When I’m not pretending to be the reincarnation of a dead president, I’m known by an older (and far stranger) moniker that’s a portmanteau of two names, together referencing my favorite cartoon character – not to mention the entity who first introduced me to conservatism.
Some people unfairly label the cartoonist Berkeley Breathed as “liberal” (I think it’s his first name that cements the idea). But his work – if not exactly “fair” to some Republicans over the years – has certainly taken aim at the extremes and sacred cows of both parties and all ideologies. Though an ardent opponent of labels, he has said he’s closest to a libertarian.
Today, Breathed’s work is earning a stamp of disapproval many cartoonists take pride in – he’s hit a target too close to the mark, and some of the newspapers that carry him have refused to publish it. Ironically, I find the content of the strip to be rather mild, but it’s no surprise that it’s generated furor since it relates to the media’s favorite taboo-that-shall-not-be-attacked these days… ISLAM.
Since the interests of the First Amendment, my own politics, and the fate of the Republic are all in alignment, I’m proud to offer this taste of revolt against today’s liberal intelligentsia. For the full strip, please take a trip over to Salon, where (give credit where credit is due) modern liberalism apparently still contains some measure of liberality.
(Incidentally, that’s my alter-ego on the left.)
But you say this could never happen here, right? I just wonder. How many of today’s liberal left do you think would like to rename a hospital or school with a modern, liberal, secular iconic figure? I mean they would never put an ideology above a persons health or advocate replacing school curriculum with any such ideology, so why would they advocate such changes?
Screenings of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth in schools! Makes you wonder which Holiday is celebrated more in schools these days, Earth Day or Easter. (Not that you would know it from teacher site referenced, but Easter was on April 8th this year… the day before Appomattox Day!??)
Forget I even asked.
Give us clear vision, that we may know where to stand and what to stand for – because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything. – Peter Marshall, US Senate Chaplain,1947
OK, I’ve been on vacation the past week and a half and am just now trying to do some catch-up. To that end I have compiled a list of some observations over that time:
Did Don Quixote ever hit that windmill? The question is germane because I’m picking up the bat for a third time to beat what I have the feeling is a very dead horse. Bones even. At least to the MSM. But, hey, just like the lottery, you can’t win if you don’t play, and so I play the game.
Thanks to the people at Wisconsin’s Capital Times (via NewsBusters), we have a story in which the father of scientific climatology, Reid Bryson, has this and more to say about the global warming theories being disseminated by media and the scientific alarmists:
There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It’s almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts.But so what, right? This is only the guy who taught the professors, who taught the professors who are teaching the graduate students who are looking to get government grants to study “global warming” so that they are never forced have to look for real work. Who the hell does he think he is?!