Bozeman's Democratic Socialists of America chapter works to fill gap in community food resources - Bozeman Chronicle

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Socialists and Leftists believe that government should be the source of all compassion, like providing food, housing, income, healthcare, and cell phones. They think government is necessary because people will starve and freeze to death without government. 

The Chronicle thinks that this Socialist food giveaway is newsworthy, but churches and charities have been doing this for decades and centuries. But suddenly it is important when Socialists start doing this themselves. Perhaps this is why the Chronicle did this report, because it was so unusual that a Socialist would do such a thing.

Clearly the Chronicle and these Socialists don't get the irony of them stepping up to meet needs out of their human compassion. It likely feels very strange to them, exciting and innovative, but it's exactly what conservatives do every day, personally meet the needs of those who are less fortunate. They give of their time, money, and labor for the sake of those less fortunate. They do this without coercion, without regard for government programs, and solely motivated by human compassion.

We welcome these Socialists to our side.

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

Meme: "The United States will not let men steal trophies from women"

 A Leftist FB friend posted this bit of idiocy:

The simple and obvious response is that María Corina Machado gave her peace prize to President Trump to honor him. 

In addition, men completing in women's sports for championships and trophies has been happening at the behest of Leftists. This obviously denies women a fair playing field. This is the point of President Trump's quoted remark. 

Leftists approve of these men stealing trophies. Swimmer Lia Thomas:

Weight lifter Avi Silverberg:

Letter to the editor: What would Jesus say of those who shun diversity, inclusion? - by Alfred Hanna

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

This is a confused and ignorant letter, full of leftist prescriptions masquerading as Christianity. The leftist starts with his politics, then looks to justify his politics with half-remembered Bible stories. That's what the Left does, dress up their pernicious beliefs with Jesus, using innocuous language and half-truths.

The idea that Jesus would condone any government policy is preposterous on its face. That we would approve of DEI in particular as a government policy is even more preposterous: 

Jn. 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Jn. 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

The letter writer wants his Jesus in his own image. That is a dangerous position to be in.

We will mostly answer the letter writer with what Jesus Himself said. That's the best way to determine what Jesus would do.

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

How to root out Trumpism What happened and what must be done - by Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich is up to his usual shenanigans. He rails against big business and billionaires, but gets confused as to who advocates for what and who is the bad guy.

As usual, Dr. Reich is reinforcing The Narrative in service to The Agenda. But this time he argues himself into a corner, unable to articulate why Trump is bad for doing the same things Bernie Sanders was advocating for.

It's really a incoherent mess. This is worse than usual for Dr. Reich.

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

"Join forces. Succeed together." Liberty Mutual's webinar to require diversity, equity, and inclusion

Sadly, Liberty Mutual has joined the woke crowd. The below email extends an invitation to their online seminar (aka, indoctrination session) to explain why diversity, equity, and inclusion are good things for business. 

They first supply a veiled threat:

Letter to the editor: Why not make it easier for Montanans to vote? - by Tom Stonecipher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The letter writer doesn't want common-sense voter ID laws. He thinks that because there isn't a present problem, there never will be. But somehow he still wants every qualified Montanan to vote, which necessarily admits there are people who are not qualified to vote. This means he favors some people not being able to vote. 

Therefore, he actually agrees with his political adversaries in principle. It's merely a matter of degree.

So we wonder what the big problem is in ensuring only legally able citizens cast a vote, since he otherwise supports the concept. He pretends (without evidence) that anti-fraud legislation will disenfranchise certain groups, but that is just a red herring. People who are motivated to vote will ensure their eligibility to vote, and people who can't be pried from their couches will not vote. 

There's not a thing wrong with that.

He can't come out and say what he really wants, because it's extremely unpopular: He wants anyone to vote. No standards. No voter rolls. No residency requirements. No legal status ascertained.

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

Euthanizing The Poor Is Just Capitalism’s True Face: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix - by Caitlin Johnstone

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

The author is a doctrinaire leftist, and not a particularly bright one. She is so inured to the leftist agitprop that she really believes it to be the truth. We've often found that socialists have a unique set of blinders they wear when considering political systems. They have an uncanny ability to completely ignore the atrocities perpetrated in the name of their political philosophy while simultaneously blaming the other side for the results of their advocacy.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

However, the reality is most leftists are cynically spewing their agitprop. They don't really believe anything they say or what other leftists say. They are simply doing their duty in service to The Narrative. A leftist is permitted, even encouraged to say anything if it serves The Narrative. In return, they get accolades from their leftist friends, they get a pass on behaving like greedy capitalists, and they are free to engage in any behavior, legal or illegal, they wish, if they simply say the right things and hold to the right ideas.

The Narrative, therefore, is the talking points and bumper-sticker slogans approved by the Central Committee for dissemination each day. This is why we see such uniformity in The Narrative as each purveyor of agitprop receives his or her marching orders.

The sole purpose of The Narrative is not to tell facts, explain things, or increase understanding. No, the Left doesn't care about women, the poor, gay rights, fascism, inequality, abortion, or racism. Those things are only of interest to the degree they can be used to service The Narrative. In fact, Leftists regularly act in opposition to these causes, but as we said, they will invariably get a pass because they are serving The Agenda.

The Narrative has one singular purpose: To advance The Agenda. The Agenda, quite simply, is to overthrow the power structures so as to install Marxism. They want rich people's money taken from them, America's liberty negated, and respect for individual rights subordinated to the state, and the destruction of every idea or activity that allows people to live in peace unaccosted by tyrannical government as they pursue their beneficial self-interest. 

The Left cannot countenance a people who have achieved a nice life, a nice family, who are generous and helpful, and polite and hard working. The Agenda requires a disaffected, dissatisfied, envying class of people (the proletariat) who can be persuaded to rise up against the power structure (the bourgeois). 

Thus the purpose the author's article is solely to promulgate The Narrative. She did her duty today, and will repeat the same bumper sticker slogans and leftist talking points tomorrow and every day until The Agenda is finally installed.

As an aside, it is the Left that wants to euthanize. Canada, a decidedly leftist government, has legalized euthanasia, and to date, has euthanized nearly 32,000 people. A former Olympic athlete who had been trying for years to obtain a wheelchair ramp was instead offered euthanasia.

This is typical for leftists, to accuse their adversaries of doing something untoward while they themselves are actually doing that very thing.

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

Psst: Want to know why Americans are gloomy about the "best" economy since 1984? - By Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich continues to be a mouthpiece for the far left, pretending to be a truth-teller, but spouting only agitprop. He's rather clever in the way he delivers his message, because the casual reader would nod his head in agreement. But a closer examination reveals logical inconsistencies, the omission of key facts, and a manipulation of events and history designed to promulgate The Narrative.

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

The Democratic Socialists of America Can Mobilize Gen Z'ers Like Me - BY CALLA WALSH

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

This narcissistic young person, entirely convinced of her own moral superiority, seems to think she is the one we have been waiting for. Having nothing to offer except tired socialist slogans, lacking understanding of even the most basic political or economic concept, she prattles on for nearly 1500 words.

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

BSD7 Equity Talking Points - July, 2021 - Bozeman School District

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

The Bozeman School district published these "talking points" in an effort to diffuse opposition to their proposed equity plan. They make it a particular point to dismiss Critical Race Theory, telling us that CRT is not being proposed. That of course does not mean things couldn't change later, especially considering how the political Left pushes their agenda unceasingly.

We wish to address one thing in particular, the cartoon drawing of how equity works, see below. This has been around a long time in different forms, but previously was used to describe sameness versus equality. In either case, the cartoon is troubling.

Notice three children, all standing on boxes. One cannot see over the fence. In the second panel the tall child no longer has a box, but the short child has two boxes. This is "equity," according to the Bozeman School district.

However, the obvious problem not explained by the school district is, who took the box from the tall child? How was it decided that the tall child should have his box taken away and given to the short child? How does this manifest in real life? Would a gifted student be denied advanced placement courses because educational resources would be diverted to special education, for example? What exactly is the resource (box) being denied the tall child and given to the short child?

The cartoon is not actually about giving slower students or disadvantaged students more attention, as indicated by the talking point. The cartoon has nothing to do with educational resources. Rather, it is wealth redistribution, which justifies the taking of a rich person's "extra" money and giving it to someone more worthy of it.

Like so much of what the Left does, this cartoon example is indicative of how little the Left thinks about what they're doing, or what the implications of their actions will be.

Or maybe they just don't care. This could be why they were shocked by the extent of the opposition.

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

Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others - Barbara Ehrenreich - FB meme

A leftist Faceborg friend posted this:

Transcript:

"Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on - when she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently - then she has made a great sacrifice for you. The working poor are the major philanthropists of our society."

These pronouncements require several assumptions:

The trouble with capitalism - by Edward Feser

Found here. A great presentation.

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


It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:24)

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

When people use or hear the word “capitalism,” some of the things they might bring to mind are:

1. The institution of private property, including private ownership of the basic means of production

2. Market competition

3. The existence of corporations as legal persons

4. Inequalities in wealth and income

5. An economic order primarily oriented to the private sector, with government acting at the margins and only where necessary

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of those things. Indeed, some of them (such as private property and a government that respects subsidiarity) are required as a matter of natural law. Eliminating all economic inequalities (as opposed to remedying poverty, which is a very different matter) is neither possible nor desirable. The concept of the corporate person has long been recognized by, and regarded as salutary within, the natural law tradition (whatever one thinks about its instantiation in modern business corporations). Socialism in the strict sense, which would centralize the most fundamental economic decision-making, is intrinsically evil.

On the other hand, other people using or hearing the term “capitalism” might have in mind things like:

6. A doctrinaire laissez-faire mentality that is reflexively hostile to all governmental economic intervention

7. The market as the dominant social institution, with an ethos of consumerism and commodification of everything as its sequel

8. Corporations so powerful that they are effectively unanswerable to government or public opinion

9. Doctrinaire minimalization or even elimination of social welfare institutions, even when there is no feasible private sector alternative

10. Globalization of a kind that entails dissolution of corporate and individual loyalties to the nation-state and local communities.

Now, all of these things are bad and should be opposed on natural law grounds.

If the Training Recommends Murder, the Training Is Clearly Wrong - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The typically loquacious Mr. Robinson expends 2808 words in a vain attempt to establish that police are being trained to murder when they could be trained to disable. This is a false choice, and one of the elements is not even true. Police are not being trained to murder. It is not murder for a police officer to use deadly force against a person who is about to commit murder.

Mr. Robinson will be happy to show us videos of other knife-wielding suspects being successfully disarmed by police, but for some reason he does not provide us a link to the Ma’Khia Bryant incident. None of these videos he provides show a person about to stab another person to death.

In typical leftist fashion Mr. Robinson second guesses the split second decision to kill Ms. Bryant. These leftists are armchair quarterbacking a coulda-shoulda, as if these situations can be micromanaged by bureaucrats in cubicles. But there cannot be a procedure where the officer checks off each step at the scene before acting. In actual fact, highly trained police officers react on both instinct and experience, and 99% of the time they make a good decision, or in this case, the best decision in an impossible situation.

This is not to say there aren't bad officers or bad decisions. But to lump all police killings into the "murder" category is anti-intellectual. 

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

The Taxonomy of Student Debt Arguments - by Sparky Abraham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This loquacious author expends 5410 words in an effort to explain why student debt should be cancelled. We will attempt to wade through this, editing it down where appropriate.

The author wants full cancellation of student debt, framing it in terms of a moral justice. This morality never gets explained. Nor does he explain why college should be free.

Given this perspective, we would wonder why home mortgages shouldn't be cancelled. Or car loans. Credit card debt. If someone owes someone else and was forced to take out a loan to make the purchase, that seems rather unjust to us.

And what about the taxes we owe? Shouldn't that be completely forgiven as well? It seems unjust to us to fork over money to an oppressor government so that it can continue oppressing.

On the other side of the coin, it seems that our system of paying people should cease. After all, doesn't your employer owe you your pay? If we're forgiving debt, then the employer's debt to his employees ought to be forgiven.

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

The History of Freedom Is a History of Whiteness - A conversation with Tyler Stovall - by Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins

Found here. https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/tyler-stovall-interview-white-freedom/

Our comments in bold.

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

There's just so much nonsense here that it's hard to make sense of it. One has to accept the premise that an entity, America, or a concept, freedom, is racist because white people who express the concept are racist; therefore the concept of  freedom as expressed by these white people is necessarily racist. 

This presentation is cloaked in a veneer of pseudo-scholarship and nearly impenetrable rhetoric. We shall not permit the author or the book writer to redefine terms.

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

The problem with Vimes' boot theory of economics

A FB friend posted this:

Transcript:

No economist will ever come up with a better description of why being poor is so expensive Than Terry Pratchett. Such a great quote.

Take boots for example. He earned thirty·eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh·Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for yeas and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. 

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness.
**

It may be a great quote for those who believe that the poor are being oppressed, but as far as being logical, well, we find the example unconvincing.

The Problem of Private Schools - by Sparky Abraham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author cannot make up his mind. Are private schools worse or better? Should government control schools or is indoctrination bad? 

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

It’s a well-known fact that private schools perpetuate inequality. But is abolishing them the answer? (It's a well-known fact? Really?)

Our mystery begins with my hometown of Santa Barbara, California, which has some of the best public schools in the country. This isn’t just hometown pride speaking: They really are top-notch public schools. And why shouldn’t they be great? Santa Barbara is an extremely wealthy area. Residents include Oprah, Rob Lowe, Ellen Degeneres, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Costner. The median home price hit a million dollars way back in 2004. It dipped during the recession (all the way down to $845,000) but has since recovered and is now over $1.2 million. Santa Barbara’s well-funded public schools tend to place in the top quartile of schools in California, and doubtless outperform many private schools in other towns. No one would call the schools in Santa Barbara “bad.” They are manifestly good.

What a blessing, you might think. Sure, it costs a fortune to live there, but good public schools! Free, high-quality public education is a huge asset—it’s a major determiner of property values in the first place. (Undocumented statement.)

Oh—you might think—how wonderful to be free from the private/charter/magnet/public battles, free from planning kindergarten applications at birth to set up your kid for the application for elementary school in order to put them in the best position to get into the right middle school, which is so important for getting them into a good high school, which of course is essential for admission to the right college, which will be basically required for their law school application. No need for any of that in Santa Barbara. You can just go sign ‘em up.

But here’s the mystery: Santa Barbara also has a thriving industry of private schools. (The fact that the author considers it a mystery is revealing. He cannot understand why parents would choose private education for their children. Really, the issue is that parents CHOOSE. He doesn't like their choices. Parents shouldn't have that choice. That's his real problem.)

Animals Are Pointless, And We Should Be Too - Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Robinson wanders into the truth of the value of life, but never makes the connection to the unborn.
------------------

The value of life does not depend on “productivity.”

What do ducks do all day? I have been watching some recently, (The author will refer to this sort of thing more than once. Apparently he has the time to make these observations and reflect at length, which suggests he is not employed. We would speculate that part of the reason he is writing is to justify his own life situation.)

and the answer is: not much. They float around. They eat. They quack. They poop. They waddle from pond to tree and back again. Sometimes they reproduce using their weird corkscrew genitalia. But they do very little work. Other animals are much the same. I watched some turtles the other day, sitting beside a lake. They basked in the sunshine. Then they went in the water for a bit. Then they came out again. This seemed to be their entire life.

I am not saying animals do no labor. (Oh, so they do work? Doesn't this make the author's case moot?)

Oftentimes, the struggle to survive is intense, and many are constantly exerting themselves. But once they’re fed and rested, a lot of what they do consists of standing around. Or sitting. Or wandering this way and that. (So these animals work [feed themselves], and once they've eaten they stop? Sort of like working 9-5 and going home and reading a book or going to a movie?)

Cats, as we know, mostly just sleep, and when you think about it, it’s rather incredible that millions of years of evolution have produced a creature whose main purpose is just to lie in one spot unconscious.

Animals do not seek meaning, as far as we can tell. The very concept of a meaningful life is incomprehensible to them. There is just life, and life consists of the things that need to be done and then things they just seem to like doing. But one animal is quite different: us. The human. Many humans have a very strange idea that life should consist of more than just quacking and floating. It should be “meaningful,” whatever that is. (The author admits his ignorance. He doesn't know what a meaningful life is. He doesn't even understand how people derive meaning and satisfaction at a job well done. He doesn't seem to get it that people like to work and achieve and become successful, the fruit of their labor being a reward.)

We all must stand against supremacy, supremacists - letter by Sara Rushing

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

Contrary to the author's statements, it is not ok to be white, and someone saying that it is ok to be white is not automatically being a white supremacist. But of course, the author is content to simply make her assertions as if they were self-evident. This is how the typical leftist functions.

We, however, will document our claims. A quick Google search "white people evil" yields these top results:

• Why are white people so evil and barbaric?
• Teen Vogue Writer: "All White People are Evil"
• Whites are the Source of All Evil
• Why are White People the Most Evil
• Almost All White People are Inherently Racist
• White Men Must be Stopped

She claims, White people have never been told that whiteness is anything other than superior. This is spectacularly false. Whites are typically blamed for every problem in the world today. Whites are routinely shouted down, they are told they are exercising "white privilege," and they are expected to pay reparations. Clearly whites are being told it is not ok to be white.

Ironically, the author herself admits that being white is bad. Whites have the advantage of a system of power and privilege that advantages white people simply for being white, and has shaped up historically in ways that subjugate non-white peoples in more (slavery, genocide) or less (implicit bias) brutal ways.

The overwhelming majority of whites do not fit this description. The overwhelming majority of Americans reject participating in any system that unfairly advantages any race. The overwhelming majority of people simply have no desire to hate or oppress anyone.

Last point. A white person is like any other person. It's ok to be who they are, including their skin color. Their skin color, like any other skin color, does not speak to their character, work ethic, morality, generosity, emotional state, or intelligence. 

Leftists need to have the same attitude about whites as they do for any other race. The fact they don't means, hmm, they're racist.
--------------------

The Case for a Coercive Green New Deal - by John Feffer

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

This is a long, obtuse, and disturbing article, advocating for what would be a ruthless dictatorship never before seen on the planet. 

We would question the imperative the author asserts. What is the basis for the author's prescriptions? Is it moral? Political? Philosophical? He assigns value to some things, while impeaching others. But he never explains why we should agree with these valuations or why they are desirable or a justifiable trade-off.

For the author, climate change is The Problem To Be Solved At All Costs. The ends justify the means. Any means. In fact, the author implicitly or explicitly justifies the curtailing of human and political rights, the possibility of executing the weak, elderly, or sick, the rationing of food and other resources, and forced labor. 

The road to utopia is a bumpy one.
----------------