For some (technically unfathomable) reason I am getting lots of (mostly favourable) comments on a post I entered in a long defunct blog of my own that I had had a go at before joining RedStateEclectic.
Funny to read a post that is five years old. My writing may have been a wee bit more laddish then; also, I may have a lesser urge to be reproachful toward the unenlightened (really?). At any rate, in large measure I remain in agreement with my former self.
As of writing these lines, Germany's most frequented DE>EN - EN>DE
on-line-dictionary reveals uncertainty as to the meaning of the term
this a case of the confused finding it difficult to sort out their
confusion? I suspect so. I harbour the presumption that muddled thinking
is essential to upholding what a vast number of people in Germany
consider their dearest believes. The ever-present intimidation of
"political correctness" both expresses and enforces "intellectual"
commitments concocted from inconsistency, cowardice and opportunism.
Let me give you an example of how doublethink serves to fend off the moral overload people are constantly exposed to these days:
a senior civil servant told me that he had applied for a new job. He
regarded himself the best candidate for the position but was almost
certain he would not be considered because the second best applicant
would likely be favoured on the grounds of being a woman. He thought
this unjust. When I challenged him to protest the probable decision, he
switched to a different position, underwriting the need for positive
discrimination (affirmative action) on behalf of women.
implications of the underlying theory which he espoused startled me: The
first assumption was that there is a uniform view as to the station
women deserve in our time. The second assumption was that this standard
of where women should have arrived at in our days has been anticipated
by all men in human history, only to be studiously violated by them
until very recently. The third assumption was that the male conspiracy
behind the suppression of women established a guilt among contemporary
men and an obligation for them to make good in terms of positive
discrimination favouring women.
In the course of our discussion,
he remained trapped in doublethink, firmly believing both that it was
not right to pass the best candidate over and that such injustice
assumed the quality of just behaviour when it came to restoring women's
rightful station in contemporary life.
Eventually tired of the
debate, he told me that the issue was of little import as the promotion
would involve only a negligible pay rise and that his present position
required only one or two days effective work per week and thus left much
leeway for other activities to satisfy his needs.
Incidentally, the man's job is to define what our pupils are to be taught.
hallmark of our time, assiduously promoted in the educational system
and asserted by a haggling variant of democracy, is the replacement of
consistent principles of justice by a calculus of popularity ("but that
is what everyone thinks") and expediency ("why, I can/can't get away
with it"). The idea that justice rests on consistent principles gives
way to a notion of justice based on the enforcement of organized
Once special interests are fortified by a majority,
the totalitarian concept of democracy (i.e. the belief in the
unconstrained power of a majority) guarantees that these special
interests define justice - arbitrarily, of course.
we know it, i.e. the philosophy holding that political power defines
justice, overrides consistency and, thus, creates moral overload and the
need for doublethink.
Main Entry: dou·ble·think Pronunciation: 'd&-b&l-"thi[ng]k Function: noun : a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas
Beginning Wednesday, May 15, committees registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will be able to go on-line to create a new electronic filing password, retrieve a forgotten password or change their existing e-filing password.
If even Chris Matthews is done with Obama, who’s left? You can even watch the video here but this is the text:
‘What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn’t
like dealing with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that
means members of the congress, either party. He doesn’t particularly
like the press…. He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what
Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft,’ Matthews said.
‘So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning,
visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or
somewhere,’ Matthews continued. ‘But what part does he like? He doesn’t
like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn’t like selling to
the press. He doesn’t like giving orders or giving somebody the power to
give orders. He doesn’t seem to like being an executive.’
On Tuesday’s program, Matthews similarly called Obama ‘a ship with the engine off.’
“A ship with the engine off.” He’s actually much worse than that and far more destructive but it will do for now.
The problem with compromising your principles means that you have to give up some of them, and for the past 45 years, GOP leadership has been willing to hand off our 2nd amendment rights in exchange for nothing more than, at best, attempting to quiet down the chattering class of the left.
Those of us 50 and older learned a long time ago that the left will never be satiated. They will never have a government to suit them. They will never have enough welfare programs. Nobody will ever pay their fair share. And no amount of private firearm ownership is permissible.
Of course, the manipulations always come with demeaning, condescending statements from both sides of the aisle, assuring us that nobody wants to take guns away from everybody. They only want to decide who is allowed to have them.
They're liars. They are too politically savvy to actually talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Instead they content themselves with taking our rights away through incremental-ism. Every snippet of freedom the government allows us to keep in the name of compromise moves to the top of the list of the next loophole to close. Private sales of guns, for example. But make no mistake - the long term agenda of the big government politicians is to take all guns away from anybody not carrying a government ID.
The basic theme of the [below] article is simple and most of us learned it as fifth-graders: CO2
is primarily the plant food while its other implications for nature are
negligible in comparison. Humanitarian organizations should work hard
to help the mankind to increase the CO2 concentration and it's surprising that virtually all of them are failing to do so.
Thus, ex-moonwalker Harrison Schmitt and physics professor Will Happer of Princeton argue:
Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation
than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this
natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control
of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is
that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary
to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by
increasing agricultural productivity.
I’m absolutely certain that Lord Mandelson and Daniel Cohn-Bendit
will tell you that the European experiment has succeeded because there
has been peace in Europe since it began in the 1950s. Can we just knock
that on the head? European integration has had absolutely nothing to do
with peace in Europe since World War II; that has been the achievement
of NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation]. The creation of the
European Union was not about war and peace, otherwise there would have
been a European Defence Community, and that was vetoed by the French
National Assembly in 1954.
Europe has to be judged in economic terms, since its own terms have
always been economic. And how did it do? In the 1950s the economy of
integrated Europe grew at 4 per cent. In the 1960s, it was about the
same. In the 1970s, growth was 2.8 per cent; in the 1980s, it slid to
2.1 per cent; in the 1990s, it was only 1.7 per cent: and so on, down to
As European integration has proceeded, its growth has declined. The
share of Europe in global GDP has fallen since 1980 from 31 per cent to
just 19 per cent. Since 1980 the EU has grown faster than the United
States in only nine out of 32 years. Never has its unemployment rate
been lower than the US unemployment rate.
Are any of you investors? What were the worst equity markets of the
last 10 years? They were Greece, Ireland, Italy, Finland, Portugal, the
Netherlands, and Belgium — the worst in the world. And on top of all of
this, we have monetary union — the ultimate experiment gone wrong.
We warned them, ladies and gentlemen. We said, if you have a monetary
union without labour market integration and without any fiscal
federalism, it will blow up. I predicted that in 2000. It is happening
in real time, in a chemistry lab, on the other side of the Atlantic.
But this was also a political experiment gone wrong. Do you know what
that experiment was? The experiment was to see if Europeans could be
forced into an even closer union — despite their wishes — by economic
means because the political means failed.
And when the European peoples voted against further integration,
their respective governments were told to try again. It happened to the
Danes in 1992, and to the Irish twice: in 2001 and again in 2008. Their
citizens gave the wrong answer in the referendum, so the governments
just held another one. This tells you something about why this
experiment has failed — it has failed because it has lost political
legitimacy. And we see this not only in Greece but in government after
government across Europe. Thirteen have fallen since this crisis began
two years ago, and more will follow in the months to come.
Written by an Iowa State senior by the name of Barry Snell, there's so much good stuff in it that you'll have to read it for yourself. Here's a few key points, but I'd be doing him a disservice if I didn't stress that there's much, much more at the link below:
The emotional mob does not rule in America.
... you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting.
... concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down.
...many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion.
For anyone who doubted what was happening before their very
eyes, the reality of Rand Paul 2016 becomes more and more clear,
per today's National Review:
Rand Paul’s chief strategist is leaving his Senate post to run
the Kentucky Republican’s political shop.
Doug Stafford, who is widely seen as Paul’s closest adviser,
will soon resign as chief of staff to manage Paul’s national
political operation. Today’s news is the clearest sign yet that
Paul, a potential 2016 contender, is building a presidential