“But today, we honor your differences for they have determined your future, here are the leaders and the teachers and the workers of tomorrow and I think we’re in very good hands….When we leave this room, you will no longer be dependents but full-fledged members of our society.” (The Giver)
When the above lines are spoken, the people who hear it see it as laudable, children advancing to become productive members of society. But we, the audience, who have not grown up in that world, know that what’s being said is untrue. It’s a placating, self-congratulating monologue where those listening to the tradition lap up what is being said as their child is proudly and with great enthusiasm, fed to the cycle of platitudes, failure and lies. I find myself thinking of these and lines like it every graduation speech I’ve ever seen. The ingratiation that comes with these ideas gets worse in proportion to the number of people I know who are being fed this garbage. Continue reading Inversion →
Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” Fourth Rule: Make your enemy play by their own book of rules.
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” — Matthew 7:3
There is a serious feeling that a lot of the moral outrage over trump and the Stormy Daniels case is filling a gap left behind by a still jilted Clinton camp and because the Russian story hasn’t provided nearly what the outrage has implied. More interestingly, we are seeing the return of the moral argument as a sort of retroactive “You own this liar” motif, as if voting for Hillary was the morally superior option.
Let us very quickly, go over the sins of Mrs. Underwood. There is of course the “Deplorables” comment, symbolizing her disdain for those who disagree with her for any reason (she walked it back, but if you want to play moral absolutes, I’m going with her first answer). There is working with the DNC to rig the primary. Defending her husband from women who accused him of sexual harassment and assult and now saying all victims should be believed. She once stated having a private and public position, which basically indicated she was lying even to her supporters. There also seems to be, within the Clinton camp, a very low view of “taco bowls”, also known as “needy Latinos” also known as Hispanic Americans. Continue reading 2016 →
The Kanye West story has proven to be an interesting exploration in intolerance from the so-called “Tolerant-Left”. From John Legend’s condescending text that comes off with a cultish “No, brother, you musn’t think like that” with no elaboration as to why, to the usual “complete idiot” talk from Rosie O’Donnell and the late-night talk show hosts, none of whom known for their political acumen either, West has revealed the left to be concerned entirely with groupthink. Anyone who challenges them must be crazy, mentally ill, stupid or hateful, and potentially a combination of those factors. Continue reading Graduation →
So, I’ve mentioned this before but I have a long, embarrassing and scatterbrained history with the academic world. Thankfully, I only have two projects left, and they’re both largely complete. The most consistent bright spot has been here with the CCO. In dumbing down a few years into a 5 minute talk I want to cover a few things that I’ve wanted to bring up for years. Continue reading LaRoche →
Look around for the best case against free speech. You’ll find that the best cases against such a notion, especially “Free speech absolutism”, is essentially the fact that it allows for what one might call “hateful” to be allowed. Not accepted necessarily but allowed. While this is true, we are coming up to the big problem here; namely, who gets to decide what hate speech is? We have differing opinions regularly being shut down as “hate speech”. A 2017 article from the Atlantic asks “Why isn’t expression that shames or demonizes a speaker not a legitimate form of counter-speech.” When positing that “It doesn’t address the merits of the argument”, the writer says that idea reflects “a rather narrow view of what counts as the merits. To argue that a speaker’s position is racist or sexist to say something about the merits of her position.” Continue reading Infringe →
I have a long, drawn out history with the academic world, I can’t say I’ve enjoyed really any part of my experience. I kinda lost my way halfway through and never recovered. I’ve often say that the one thing I gained from the academic world that I am confident I will use, was a belief in God, and that’s it. Wishing not to demean the importance of faith in God, it’s just not what people come to school for. The reason for this belief is the Coalition for Christian Outreach (The CCO). I encountered them at Point Park as a very strict atheist who had been burned by religion one too many times. The group at Point Park was called “The Body”. I was there, just to better understand how Christians thought and when I asked questions, I wasn’t really seeking anything. This was a matter of “I’m going to learn how to take everything you say apart.” You see how well that worked, but stick with me. Eventually, I’d get involved with the team at Duquesne, known as “Crossroads” as well. Continue reading Jubilee →
“There is a manifest, marked distinction, which ill men with ill designs, or weak men incapable of any design, will constantly be confounding,—that is, a marked distinction between change and reformation. The former alters the substance of the objects themselves, and gets rid of all their essential good as well as of all the accidental evil annexed to them. Change is novelty; and whether it is to operate any one of the effects of reformation at all, or whether it may not contradict the very principle upon which reformation is desired, cannot be known beforehand. Reform is not change in substance or in the primary modification of the object, but a direct application of a remedy to the grievance complained of. So far as that is removed, all is sure. It stops there; and if it fails, the substance which underwent the operation, at the very worst, is but where it was.” Edmund Burke
When I stumbled upon this quote, at a time when the nation reflects on the Civil Rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, as well as a beautiful essay by Peggy Noonan, I was finally able to put my finger on what it is that truly concerns me about today’s activists, both gun control and otherwise. Noonan observes that the civil rights marches were not merely peaceful, but dignified. Black and white men and women marched together peacefully looking like they were attending a serious meeting. Their preacher was one of the best orators in human history. The March for Our Lives was one that continued David Hogg’s interminable 15 minutes through endless attacks on the opposing viewpoint and hyperbolic rants about the epidemic of gun violence. The actual crime rate in America is still at “historic lows”, according to the FBI. The gun control movement is almost entirely attacks on the National Rifle Association and its members. Calling them everything from terrorists and people who like children getting killed among other unproductive vilification. Continue reading Burke →
The more I’ve ruminated on the marches and how the gun control movement hasn’t moved in 20 years, I’ve started to realize a few things:
One: the left -still- generally refuses to believe that evil exists and seems to think that it can be legislated out of existence.
Two: They don’t seem to have the aftermath of their laws in mind. Continue reading Consequences →
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it” — Upton Sinclair
“To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.” George MacDonald”
So, that big march for gun control took place today, I’m sure you heard of it, you see that there is word of this huge wave of support for gun control. Do you not see the crowds? The signs? Do you not hear the speeches? Continue reading Enough →