Views on the News
Views on the News*
May 9, 2015
The difference between enlightened self-interest and nihilistic narcissism is the difference between the conservative and liberal viewpoints. The difference between the Right and Left is chiefly one of personal responsibility. The Right believes in self-responsibility, while the Left favors the “blame game” and adopting a victim status. The Left points fingers everywhere but at themselves because the problem is it is everyone’s fault but their own. Watching the various pundits on TV discuss the mess in Baltimore makes this dichotomy between the Left and Right all too clear. Believing liberal welfare policies will fix the problems created by liberal welfare policies is insane. Liberalism is a disease of the brain and has infected a vast swath of America, especially in urban enclaves across the land. Making the same mistake over and over again and expecting different results is a common definition of insanity, and yet that is exactly what I see liberals doing again and again in place after place. Just as a parent attempting to discipline an unruly child can expect resistance and “back-talk,” so too the Right can expect similar behavior from liberals when their “matches” are taken away. I admire the way Governor Scott Walker maturely handled the liberal hysterics in his state. He just went ahead and did what was right, regardless of what sort of temper tantrums the Left threw. I have not noticed an appreciation for much of anything among the agitprop protestors milling around the crowds in Baltimore and elsewhere. What I see in its place is a haughty and churlish sense of “entitlement.” The Left had best hope that they can continue to keep urban blacks under their thumb and shackled to the government plantation because if the urban blacks ever get wise to how the Left has played them and betrayed them, that’ll be all she wrote. Kept in ignorance, propagandized and indoctrinated, all too many urban blacks obediently look in the direction that their overseers tell them to, and dutifully ignore the true source of the corruption, despair, and stagnation that long-term rule by the Left invariably leaves in its wake. If I hear one more smug, supercilious, race-baiting leftist bigot spout off about slavery I think I’ll scream.
(“The Left, Right, and Baltimore” by Jim O’Neill dated May 2, 2015 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/71623 )
Truth has long since been replaced by “narratives” on the American left. Rather than discuss genuine issues and objective facts, progressives prefer to make up a politically effective story. It doesn’t matter whether the story is false, as long as it sways the public’s emotions and wins the day, because the ends justify the means. This “lying game” strategy often shows up in politically sensitive scientific debates. Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate DDT, the most effective pesticide for fighting one of the greatest plagues faced by humanity, malaria, because it was weakening the shells of bird’s eggs. So Carson falsified data to convince the public that DDT was carcinogenic. Carson brought about a global ban on DDT, probably saving a few birds, but at the cost of allowing malaria to blind or kill millions of people in the Third World. Another false environmentalist narrative is the global warming hoax. A few decades back, environmentalist “scientists” started devising computer models that predicted manmade calamity within, oh, 10 or 15 years ago. Turns out the models were rigged, the data was falsified, and there has been no measurable warming for nearly 20 years. Many other examples could be cited, ranging from the war on fracking to the fetus being just a “clump of cells” to denying the abortion/breast cancer link to the sexual revolution itself, which was triggered by the fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey. It’s in politics that the lying game reaches its fullest bloom. The Michael Brown narrative, hyped by the media and exploited by race hustlers to infuriate black voters, turned out to be a lie. Likewise the supposed campus rape epidemic, in which gang rapes by fraternity boys and lacrosse players turned out to be figments of feminists’ imagination. Over the recent past, there has been a series of highly publicized incidents in which instances of victimization turned out to have been committed by the victims themselves. The American left has come to condone and accept untruth as an appropriate way to conduct their affairs. They are abetted by a media that actively covers up their scandals, while exaggerating the faults of their opposition. Political campaigns have always been infested by lies, but in recent years entire campaigns have been founded on artfully crafted lies. We’ve witnessed candidate after candidate campaign on, and often win on, deliberate lies about their backgrounds, their values, and what they plan to do in office. Our culture’s embrace of lying indicates moral breakdown on a profound level, in which people have begun to satisfy their selfish impulses without regard for the consequences. In the next election, America needs to choose a leader of integrity who can be trusted to stand against our nation’s moral decline and social disintegration.
(“The Lying Game” by Ken Blackwell dated May 2, 2015 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2015/05/02/the-lying-game-n1993211 )
Neighborhoods matter: their schools, community, neighbors, local amenities, economic opportunities and social norms are a critical factor shaping your children's outcomes. That's the upshot of two new studies from Harvard economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues. The project's initial findings saw little evidence that getting poor people out of poor communities and into thriving ones helped them all that much. However the impact was enormous when you focused on how early kids got out of impoverished neighborhoods and how well they did over their lifetimes. Poor kids who left poor neighborhoods were much more likely to go to college and earn more. The data suggest that girls were 26% less likely to become single mothers. There is a laundry list of possible explanations for why neighborhoods matter. The presence of economic opportunities in non-poor neighborhoods is surely important. Peers are more important than parents in determining how kids turn out. Others argue that parents, particularly married parents, are the crucial factor. Everyone agrees that schools, criminal justice policies and racial attitudes are important variables. The debates are about how much weight we should give them. All of these factors influence each other. In very poor neighborhoods they combine to compound problems. In middle-class neighborhoods, they reinforce each other in positive ways. Neighborhoods matter because culture matters. Middle-class families have always known this, which is why so many parents move to the suburbs in pursuit of safer streets, better schools and shared values. Parents have an enormous role in deciding what kind of peers their kids will be exposed to. The importance of culture, including everything from social norms to legal structures, is largely settled in the global arena. If the nation is going to make progress on inter-generational poverty, then social mobility should be tackled at a local level. The only way to break the cycle of poverty is to fix the culture of poverty.
(“To Break the Cycle of Poverty in Baltimore, Fix the Culture of Poverty” by Jonah Goldberg dated May 6, 2015 published by http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2015/05/06/to-break-the-cycle-of-poverty-in-baltimore-fix-the-culture-of-poverty-n1994634 )
Saul Alinsky radicals who are all about revolutionary change have now seized control of an issue that can more quickly bring about that change, "climate disruption," as expressed in community-organizer lingo. In his 1971 handbook, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, the godfather of community organizers, Saul D. Alinsky, asserted that the "basic requirement for the politics of change is to reorganize the world as it is." To Alinsky, the world and its history were all about revolution. If Alinsky were alive today, he would probably see that the challenge is to convince enough of the "Have-Nots" that their privation stems not just from racism, sexism, classism, and all of the other social -isms used to divide people, but also from what some have called "climatism." Ensconced in political power, today's Alinsky-style radical elites running roughshod over pure scientific practice can force societal change predicated on unfounded predictions of climate doom. They seem willing to use any means necessary to realize their society-remaking goal, since to such radicals, the ends justify the means. Climate activists are using tactics straight out of the Alinsky playbook:
· Take the first rule for radicals: "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." The simple fact is that the evidence in favor of harmful man-made climate change is inconclusive at best, but you wouldn't know this if you follow climate activists' unsubstantiated, arrogant assertions.
· Whereas the second rule cautions, "Never go outside the experience of your people" in order to avoid your own cohorts' "confusion, fear, and retreat."
· The third rule advises: "Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy," to cause "confusion, fear, and retreat" in your opponents. Climate activists, along with their shills in the media, are doing just this to prominent politicians who dare to question human's “substantial” contribution to climate change.
· The fifth rule: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon," is a favorite of climate activists. It's far easier to submit a barrage of ridicule or to sling labels like "denier" at people than to engage in thoughtful scientific debate, especially if the facts are not in your favor.
· Skipping along to the seventh rule, Alinsky notes that "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag" or, in the case of "global warming," it gets proven wrong. Climate activists started with hyping dire predictions about global warming and had plenty of computer models to back them up. When real life proved those models to be wrong, the activists embraced "climate change," to continue hoodwinking the unwary public.
· Real trouble for the truth is found in execution of the ninth rule: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Several professors and climatologists who don't toe the leftist line on climate change have had their reputations attacked. How many other scientists, interested only in actual non-political climate research, are now going to be more acquiescent to the climate activist position out of fear of similar attacks?
· In the thirteenth rule, probably Alinsky's most well-known and well-worn rule, radicals are directed to "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Climate activists, especially when confronted with inconvenient facts, like to target the messenger with ad hominem attacks (aka, "deniers"), rather than prove their own guarded hypotheses.
Alinsky would have been proud of climate scientists operating essentially as social activists. Not only do the activists get to liberally spout their ideas, but they also get to force them on others. Activism can be used to mask intolerance, in this case intolerance to dissenting voices in atmospheric science. So the real challenge is for reasonable dissenting scientists and engineers to convince ordinary, good, decent Americans that, since the publication of Rules for Radicals in 1971, their misery stems largely not from racism, sexism, classism, or even climatism, but from the execution of the most pernicious -ism of all: socialism.
(“Saul Alinsky, Climate Scientist” by Anthony J. Sadar and JoAnn Truchan dated May 4, 2015 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/saul_alinsky_climate_scientist.html )
Skeptics about democracy in the 18th and 19th centuries argued that the enfranchised masses would use their votes to seize the property of the relatively few rich, but it hasn't happened, in this country or abroad, to anything like the extent that those would-be Cassandras feared. Nonetheless, we continue to hear calls for economic redistribution, the clinical term for public policies transferring money from the relatively few rich to the much more numerous non-rich. However there has been a steady decline in support for redistributive government. As inequality increases, so does ideological conservatism in the electorate. Meanwhile support for health care "as a government-protected right" has fallen off from 69% in a 2006 Gallup poll, replaced by a 52% majority for the proposition that health care is not a federal responsibility. Consider some redistributive policies often advocated. Rewriting labor laws to show more favor to private sector unions is a political nonstarter and likely wouldn't restore unions anywhere near their 1950s peak. Increasing the minimum wage and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would redistribute income, a little. Higher taxes on the rich are always a socialist priority. You do get more income inequality when you destroy wealth - Everyone is worse off. Americans have an innate sense that it's a mistake to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Americans seem to understand that, if taxes are too high, the affluent will figure out ways to shelter income.
(“Despite Inequality, Americans Dislike Redistribution” by Michael Barone dated May 7, 2015 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/050715-751557-american-show-little-faith-in-government-redistribution-schemes.htm )
Today, criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech, since it is susceptible to attack and intimidation by jihadists and calls for self-censorship by the politically correct. Terrorists assaulted a “Mohammed cartoon” event in Texas sponsored by activist Pamela Geller, and the response has been, in part, soul-searching over what’s wrong with Pamela Geller. Geller refers to her meeting as a free-speech event while her critics prefer to call it an anti-Islam event. Criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech, since it is susceptible to attack and intimidation by jihadists and calls for self-censorship by the politically correct. Gellar had a perfect right to do what she did, and it’s a condemnation of her enemies, and confirmation of her basic point about radical Islam, that the act of drawing and talking elicited a violent response. A swath of the Muslim world doesn’t just want to ban depictions of Mohammed, but any speech critical of Islam. It will ever be thus until all of Islam accepts the premises of a free society, as have other major world religions. The day there can be the Muslim equivalent of the play The Book of Mormon without the writers, actors, and audience members fearing for their lives will be the day that Islam is reformed. There is such a thing as self-restraint and consideration of the sensibilities of others, but it shouldn’t be the self-restraint of fear and that’s the difference between Pamela Gellar and her enemies, and between civilization and barbarism.
(“Americans Have a Right to Insult Islam” by Rich Lawry dated May 5, 2015 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417903/americans-have-right-insult-islam-rich-lowry )
The destruction of the USA and its takeover by domestic traitor and foreign forces has been in the works for many decades. In recent history, Roger Nash Baldwin (founder of the ACLU and ‘father’ of many leftist organizations) was one of the prime “leg men” in establishing the foundation for the overthrow of the USA. Baldwin’s history is rife with his support of Soviet Russian style Marxism and only requires a brief search to pull up the actions comprising his legacy. Although many in the past have set the table for the USA’s destruction, it was not until Barack Hussein Obama took the US White House as his own that the final phase began implementation. It has been extremely easy for Obama and his syndicate to “transform” (aka “dismantle and decimate”) the USA from within, as the people of the country had already been conditioned to following the authority of leftist-run public (government) school systems and would buckle to any far-Left Luciferian authority’s order they faced. In order to prove they were none of those, a great portion of the liberal electorate voted for Obama so that they might be counted as a good guy or girl by their peers. Policies to actually help the country to prosper and become freer no longer mattered… it was how the “selfie” crowd was perceived that counted. So… they elected Obama to assuage their presumed shame for forgotten past sins and allowed him to do whatever he wanted to the country and to them. Generations are now being raised to submit to any and all leftist authority and to regurgitate their mantras and beliefs on command. When the leaders within a country start saying its population must make nice and not offend its enemies, you know said country is only a short time away from its final inevitable decimation. The war began some time ago and too few even seemed to notice… or cared. Yes… the destruction of the once great USA was all too easy… because it had help from its targeted victims. We were given free will by our Creator, and it’s an abject shame we have used it so foolishly.
(“Destroying and Killing the USA was way too easy” by Sher Zieve dated May 6, 2015 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/71724 )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following sections:
· Civil Rights at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/Culture/civilrights.php
· Homeland Security at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/homelandsecurity.php
· Terrorism at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.php