Trying to Think through the Logic of Abortion Rights - Justin Taylor

Found here.  A very good thought experiment.
-------------------

The logic of the landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade was that ignorance about when human life begins entails that the government not impose restrictions upon abortion practice.

If you go back to August 16, 2008, Rick Warren asked presidential candidate Barack Obama when a fetus gets human rights, and Mr. Obama (who opposes any abortion restrictions for any reason, in line with Roe v. Wade) famously responded that the answer was “above his pay grade.”

Disabled People Will Die Under Trump: An Emergency Plea to Allies - by Carolyn Zaikowski

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

As I read this I thought it was a parody. Every single leftist talking point, rhetorical technique, characterization, and tedious trope is contained therein.
-------------------

This is an emergency plea to those upset about a pending Trump presidency. I’d like to especially address intersectional feminists, radicals, anarchists, socialists, and others in the USA who are able-bodied and drawn towards systems-level analysis and organizing for radical change. (This sentence seems to be composed of words that are strung together in attempt to sound intellectual. I had to look up "intersectional," and discovered that it is a descriptor of supposed divergent groups that have an overlapping interest in the author's cause. I suppose this means that feminists, radicals, anarchists, and socialists who are not intersectional [as if there are such people] are not being addressed by the author and therefore should ignore her call to action.

What I also find interesting is that the author calls for radical change, which is represented by Trumps ascendancy. Apparently the election of Hillary, which would not have represented radical change, would have been preferable to the author. We therefore conclude that the author is not actually in favor of radical change, but is in favor of more of the same kinds of policies that have characterized the governance of the country for the past 8 years.

Also, I had to laugh out loud at the idea of anarchists organizing...)

FB Meme - Nobody who works 40 hours per week should be living in poverty

A FB friend shared this meme, and a Bernie supporter responded:




K.A.F.: Well the majority of people who are in poverty are children.... So.....

Me: I don't see Bernie or his supporters getting out their checkbooks and helping the disabled or mentally ill.

K.A.F.: Bernie supporter here. I have worked 40-50+ hours a week for almost a decade with the mentally ill and disabled populations in various social work positions. I think my occupation reflects those values and while I may not be able to pull out my checkbook, my financial contribution is foregoing a better paying career in order to work in this field.

Me: Your service to them is appreciated. However, my point stands.

K.A.F.: Only Bernie supporters care about the mentally ill? Or only Bernie supporters should pay to help the disabled? Both?

What does that imply about the attitudes of people who didn't support Bernie about the mentally ill and disabled?

Me: My point is that seldom does a supporter of government social programs ever feel personal responsibility to help those in need with their own money. They always seem to be in favor of helping people with others' money.

Government programs aren't compassionate, people are. But paying your taxes is not compassion. Directly helping people is compassion.

Progressives, Take Hold of American History - by HARVEY J. KAYE

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

The election results may have been different had Democrats embraced America's past and its radical imperative of freedom, equality and democracy.

Americans were ready to make history anew in 2016 — and in a tragic way we have. We elected to the presidency a man who represents not “the better angels of our nature,” but the worst. If we slept at all election night, we woke up on the morning of Nov. 9 chilled and tearful. (The author affirms the childish, immature, self-indulgent reactions to Trump's victory as if they are valid and proper.)

But as others have written, now is not the time to retreat in sorrow. (That is, the push for failed leftist initiatives must continue, despite the fact that voters soundly rejected their agenda and not only elected Trump, but also gave a historically high 33 governors and 32 state legislatures to the Republicans.

Perhaps the sorrow felt by the Left is an unconscious realization that their views are starkly unpopular, perhaps even on the wane [We hope]. They are being rendered irrelevant, and thus are forced to do one of two things: Abandon their position [unlikely, as it is very nearly a religion to them], or try to press on in the context of substantial cognitive dissonance.)

THE UNHAPPY FATE OF OPTIONAL ORTHODOXY: NEUHAUS’S LAW

Found here. A very good, but long article.

------------------------

The Public Square

Richard John Neuhaus died on January 8, 2009, at the age of seventy-two—a great loss to the magazine, to American public discourse, and to his many friends. We present here a few of our favorite items from the nineteen years of his work in The Public Square. The next edition of First Things—the April 2009 issue—will contain tributes to his extraordinary life and career.

I’ll presume to call it Neuhaus’s Law, or at least one of his several laws: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Some otherwise bright people have indicated their puzzlement with that axiom but it seems to me, well, axiomatic. Orthodoxy, no matter how politely expressed, suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others.

A well-mannered church can put up with a few orthodox eccentrics, and can even take pride in being so very inclusive. “Oh, poor Johnson thinks we’re all heretics,” says the bishop, chuckling between sips of his sherry. The bishop is manifestly pleased that there is somebody, even if it is only poor old Johnson, who thinks he is so adventuresome as to be a heretic. And he is pleased with himself for keeping Johnson around to make him pleased with himself. If, however, Johnson’s views had the slightest chance of prevailing and thereby threatening the bishop’s general sense of security and well-being, well, then it would be an entirely different matter.

Dear bitter clingers

Dear bitter clingers, you who cling to the outmoded and discredited ideals of progressivism:

I'm praying for you to the God you don't believe in,
for the comfort, grace and peace you seldom extend to others,
I'm praying for you that you would be healed and shown mercy,
though those things seem only to be granted by you to those who agree with you,

A leftist expounds on the free market - FB Conversation

A FB Conversation about Trump's campaign promises, morphing into a discussion about healthcare and the free market.

--------------------

Newt Gingrich admits Trump probably can't get Mexico to pay for his wall. 'But it was a great campaign device.'

Me: Yup, and my health insurance went down $2500.

B.L.: My insurance is going up, and has gone up. It's going to be cheaper now to pay the fine than have insurance. The good of the ACA is offset by the bad. The only way to control health care costs is single payer.

Me: The only way to control costs is the free market.

K.J.: Right, because when you're having a heart attack you're sure to shop around for the lowest prices.

Me: Which of course has nothing to do with my comment.

A Democrat's pledge to be civil

A FB friend posted this passive aggressive comment:


My contract with my fellow Americans:

So yes, I am horribly disappointed in the outcome of this election.

I'll get over it.

And just as I'd hoped would happen in 2008 when my friends on the right were equally disappointed when Obama was elected, I will try my best to keep an open mind. After all, Obama's popularity rating is now higher than Reagan's was at the end of his term.....so there is hope.

I will continue to respect the office of President of the United States, and I will do my patriotic duty to be a member of the loyal opposition: supporting him where it serves the nation's interests, and opposing him where it also serves the nation's interests. My loyalty is to the nation and the principles it was founded on, not to party or to personalities.

Moreover, there are things I will NOT do:

- I will not question the citizenship of President Trump, and unless he gives me reason to believe otherwise, I will assume he has honorable intentions.

- I will not question his claim to be a Christian, though as a non-believer who has a passing familiarity with the teachings of Christ, I must profess that if he is a Christian, I don't understand what that means as I thought I did.

- I will not belittle or criticize his wife or family to make a political point that has nothing to do with him.

- I will not fabricate conspiracy theories about him, nor carelessly pass them along as truth

- I will not oppose his proposals on the mere basis that he proposed them. I will evaluate them on their merits as I see and understand them, not on their source.

- I may chose to call him derogatory names, but will limit that to conversations with close friends and family, and in public will address him as "Mr. Trump" or "the President", or if I'm in a bad mood, just "Trump"

- I will not criticize him for the way he stands or doesn't stand at attention, for whether he salutes or doesn't salute his Marine guard, or other silly things that have nothing to do with carrying out the duties of President of the United States.

I realize that this is a far greater courtesy than has been extended to our current president, but I believe that they are reasonable expectations of any civil person, and I may be disappointed, but I strive to remain civil.

How a massive campus Christian organization systematically purges staffers who support LGBT people - by Jack Jenkins

Found here. My comments in bold.

-----------------------

So if you have an organization with a stated mission and objective, why would you be required to retain those who do not share that mission or objective?
--------------------

“I don’t know if I even believe in God anymore,” one ex-staffer said.

In early October, Time.com published a story accusing InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA — a campus organization that runs evangelical student groups at 667 colleges across the country — of adopting a policy of firing employees who openly support marriage equality. (That is, firing people who oppose what InterVarsity stands for.)

Cessationism - Episode 6: Only the apostles had "all truth."

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.
-----------------------

Alfred Hitchcock Explains James Comey, the Media and 2016’s ‘MacGuffin’ - BY NEAL GABLER

Found here. My comments in bold.

It takes a master of suspense to decode the final plot twists of this election.


It is impossible to count the myriad ways in which the media botched FBI Director James Comey’s Friday announcement that the agency had found a cache of emails that seemingly (a key word) pertain to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server. (Actually, the emails contents are the relevant factor. These new emails contain information that Comey decided was serious enough to re-open the investigation.)

Donald Trump Losing by a Landslide Would Heal the Nation - by Cody Cain - Time magazine

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------

I've tried to resist writing about Donald Trump, because everyone is doing that. So this article, though about Trump, is posted here for its rich treasure trove of leftist fairy tales.

I almost don't have to comment on each assertion, because it is easy enough to point out how the author is projecting upon the Republicans the very things the Democrats are wont to do. But, I will proceed with my analysis even so.

------------------
It would signal that the GOP's scorched-earth political tactics don’t work

When our two-party system of Democrats vs. Republicans is functioning properly, there is much to recommend it. The two opposing political parties strive to offer their best ideas for governing, and the privilege of selecting between the two competing visions is bestowed upon the voters. Indeed, this is a worthy model for making decisions in society.

In recent years, however, something has gone terribly awry.

The Republican Party made the deliberate calculation that its best prospects for success lied not in abiding by the system and offering its superior ideas for governing, but instead in undermining the system by seeking to destroy its opponent. (Projecting. See racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist in your Handbook of Democratic Talking points.)

A prime example of this assault was the Republican vow to oppose everything and anything proposed by President Obama’s administration. (It's very nearly astounding for the author to assert that the opposition party should not oppose, isn't it? But that's exactly what the opposition SHOULD do is oppose!)

The Liberty Mutual App with Coverage Compass - Encouraging customers to not read their policies

The Liberty Mutual commercials have been irritating. This latest one really caught my attention:

Why We Should Tax Conspicuous Consumption - BY KATHY KIELY

Found here. My Comments in bold.
------------------------------------

Economist Robert H. Frank says the rich would be better off — and so would the rest of us.

As part of our election series focusing on the issues that aren’t getting the attention they deserve in campaign 2016, we talked with Cornell University economist Robert H. Frank about how to address growing income inequality in the United States. (Is there any doubt that increasing taxes will be the answer?)

Economist Robert Frank is arguably the country’s leading expert on wretched excess.

Over the course of a four-decade career as a distinguished academic (he has written several college textbooks, including one with former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke), the Cornell University professor has developed a curious subspeciality: Studying the lifestyles of the filthy rich and spectacularly successful.

His anthropological field guides to life among the extremely affluent, including Luxury Fever and his recently published Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, have led him to one conclusion: The 1 percent are a problem. But not necessarily for the reasons you might think.

The reason the nation’s wealthiest have become a menace to the commonweal, Frank has concluded, is not because of how much more they make than the rest of us. It’s how much more they spend. (This is an incredible statement. How many times have we heard about the greedy rich hoarding their money? How many times has the Left declared that the rich  don't create jobs? How many times have we heard that the rich need to be punished for not doing the right thing with their money?

But now we discover that none of these leftist talking points are true. That in fact the rich DO spend their money. They DO buy stuff, which has to be made by someone. They DO spread their money around. And this all is somehow a menace to society. I can't wait to find out why.)

The Antipoverty President of My Dreams - BY GREG KAUFMANN

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------------

It's hard to know where to start with this article. The author invents a preferred president (ostensibly Hillary, but his president bears no resemblance to Hillary) who cares so much about the poor, who so perfectly toes the line and flawlessly spouts leftist rhetoric, who apparently has little regard for constitutional limits to her power, and is blissfully unaware that government is already doing all of this.

This is the president of the author's dreams, a wistful pipe dream about how an elected official needs to properly press the author's emotional buttons. Hillary is to be the feeder of the masses, the royalty who deigns to dirty herself by hugging poor children and spooning out mashed potatoes in the soup kitchen because she's so compassionate, the Deliverer into the promised land.

Oh, if only we could have this president! Poverty would no longer exist! There would be no need, no hate, no crime. It's within our grasp to have utopia, if only Hillary were president!

-----------------------

George Bush's gracious letter to successor Bill Clinton - FB conversation

A FB friend posted this, and liberal cluelessness ensued:

----------------------------------------

The way transition is supposed to work


This 1993 Letter From George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton Shows the Best of American Politics
USNEWS.COM

K.J.: The difference between now and 2000 is that Al Gore was not inciting his supporters to violence.

K.J.: http://blogs.cfr.org/.../trump-and-the-makings-of-a.../...

Politics, Power, and Preventive Action » Trump and the Makings of…

Me: http://www.cnn.com/.../project-veritas-action-robert.../



Dem operative 'stepping back' after video suggests group incited…

K.H.: The violence is being propagated and incited by Republican opposition that is called the 'Democrats'. They fear that the foot hold they have is slipping away so divisive social engineering is their play book.

K.J.: The democrats have immediately condemned such actions as soon as they happened. The call to violence and hatred is coming from Trump himself, not from operatives. To suggest that Democrats are playing divisive politics because they fear their foothold is slipping away is just ludicrous.

K.H.:  K.J., So many of these are available from many news sources. http://www.breitbart.com/.../exclusive-okeefe-video.../



O'Keefe Reveals 'Bird-Dogging' to Incite Violence at Trump Events

K.J.: K.H., Sorry, anything from O'Keefe is suspect. He has proved himself untrustworthy.

K.J.: My link was to a piece by the Council on Foreign Relations - hardly a left-wing partisan propaganda machine. You are linking to Breitbart.

Me: K.H., you just can't trust your own lyin' eyes...

K.H.: Rich, I know...I should just pick up a spork and take them out.

K.J.: Which completely ignores my point about operatives being removed and action condemned. But by all means, you go ahead and stick with the reality you've chosen.

Me: K.J., do try to avoid being insulting.

K.J., Such hypocrisy, Rich.

Me: As you descend into more name-calling, don't forget to call me a hater.

Why Overturning Citizens United Isn’t Enough - BY ADAM EICHEN

Found here. My comments in bold.

-----------------

You don't have to think our democracy works perfectly to be appalled at Donald Trump's attack on it. (The author is not off to a good start. In one perfunctory sentence are several howlers:

1. The article is supposed to be about Citizens United, not Trump
2. We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic
3. The author admits our system doesn't work perfectly, yet doesn't tolerate Trump's "attack"
4. Trump did not "attack" democracy

But this is typical hyperbolic leftist rhetoric: Distract, distort, amplify, exaggerate.)

Georgia congressman fears election is ‘susceptible to corruption’ - by Alice Miranda Ollstein

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------------

Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-GA) bill to protect both voting rights and voting machine security is stuck in Congress.

(Rep. Johnson is the same man who famously worried that the island of Guam would tip over due to too many people living on it. Apparently we are to nevertheless take his opinion on election integrity to be authoritative. The fact he is still in office speaks volumes about Democrats.)

Men are horrible pigs and women are wonderful

Posted by a FB friend, a man. My comments in bold.

-------------------

This is a textbook case of virtue signaling. We see this technique more and more, as if by telling men to "man up" and women how wonderful they are, it will somehow gain points for the man. 

I posted a reply, and a "conversation" ensued. You'll find that at the bottom of the page.

-----------------

Tax sugary drinks to fight obesity, WHO urges governments - By Stephanie Nebehay

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------

There is just so much wrong with this my head is spinning. I will try to deal with the total inanity of what is written here without blowing my cool. We'll see how that goes...

-----------------

 

Governments should tax sugary drinks to fight the global epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday, recommendations industry swiftly branded "discriminatory" and "unproven". (The first sentence begins the idiocy. First the imperative "should," as if governments ought to be obligated to control the lives of people. Second is the stated reason, to "fight the global epidemic," as if obesity was a communicable disease. Third is the idea that government tax policy is a tool to engineer outcomes.)