You can read between the lines here. This is about the XYZ seminary--and Bp. X. All you need to know is this: the home-state of the priest-author.
...When officials from a Midwest diocese screened me for entry into the diocesan program, they spoke in code. The team, headed by an auxiliary bishop, wanted to know about my “view of women.” They knew – and I knew – the phrase is a dog whistle (as we say nowadays) for “ordination of women.” I didn’t take the bait. I responded that I would “work for the salvation of the souls of women every bit as hard as I would for men.”
The highly-sensitive-to-women’s-needs bishop said, “The committee would like to know your view of women’s ordination.” I knew the preferred response, but couldn’t say it: “The Church’s discipline does not permit the ordination of women today, but it may take place sometime in the future.” My actual response, to their dismay, demonstrated my theological inflexibility: “That wouldn’t be right, would it? What does the Church teach?”
The seminary admissions interview was similarly surreal....
Things have changed in XYZ since those very, very dark days, we pray.
...Evelyn Waugh once observed, “It is better to be narrow-minded than to have no mind, to hold limited and rigid principles than none at all. That is the danger which faces so many people today – to have no considered opinions on any subject, to put up with what is wasteful and harmful with the excuse that there is ‘good in everything’ – which in most cases means inability to distinguish between good and bad.”...
IIRC, St. Paul had some good things to say about 'rigidity,' too. But St. Paul was not a Jesuit.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
This Bishop is Wrong
In what is now becoming a civil war in the Catholic church, at least one Bishop is just plain wrong (assuming that his remarks are correctly reported.)
Amoris Laetitia opens a new door that goes beyond Familiaris Consortio and does away with unnecessarily harsh requirements from the Catholic Church with regard to chastity, according to a recent presentation on the Apostolic Exhortation by Bishop Marcello Semeraro in Spain....
(Significant is the fact that this address was delivered at a Jebby university, no?)
...Regarding the regulation for Catholics who have entered a second civil union after a prior sacramental marriage (and civil divorce) to live as brother and sister in order to receive the sacraments, Bishop Semeraro qualified: “What would it mean that people who have children live as brother and sister? The step forward of Amoris Laetitia, with respect to Familiaris Consortio, is that they [the civilly remarried] can express their affection in their situation, and this is where the accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director would enter into play.” He added with more clarity: “It is not a brother and sister relationship but a conjugal relationship. They are people who have children and have responsibilities in their relationship.” He claimed to support his interpretation with earlier Church magisterial teaching: “Gaudium et spes says that spouses who abstain from marital relations endanger their relationship and may commit infidelities.”...
That is--without a doubt--the clearest piece of backwards logic I have ever seen from a Bishop, or anyone else, for that matter. He claims that an adulterous relationship demands sexual 'expression' according to Familiaris--or expressed the other way around, that Famliaris requires conjugal relations even in an adulterous relationship.
Stunning. And wrong.
Amoris Laetitia opens a new door that goes beyond Familiaris Consortio and does away with unnecessarily harsh requirements from the Catholic Church with regard to chastity, according to a recent presentation on the Apostolic Exhortation by Bishop Marcello Semeraro in Spain....
(Significant is the fact that this address was delivered at a Jebby university, no?)
...Regarding the regulation for Catholics who have entered a second civil union after a prior sacramental marriage (and civil divorce) to live as brother and sister in order to receive the sacraments, Bishop Semeraro qualified: “What would it mean that people who have children live as brother and sister? The step forward of Amoris Laetitia, with respect to Familiaris Consortio, is that they [the civilly remarried] can express their affection in their situation, and this is where the accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director would enter into play.” He added with more clarity: “It is not a brother and sister relationship but a conjugal relationship. They are people who have children and have responsibilities in their relationship.” He claimed to support his interpretation with earlier Church magisterial teaching: “Gaudium et spes says that spouses who abstain from marital relations endanger their relationship and may commit infidelities.”...
That is--without a doubt--the clearest piece of backwards logic I have ever seen from a Bishop, or anyone else, for that matter. He claims that an adulterous relationship demands sexual 'expression' according to Familiaris--or expressed the other way around, that Famliaris requires conjugal relations even in an adulterous relationship.
Stunning. And wrong.
Bucks' Lefty Owners: Diaper-Pin Babies
This comes as no surprise. The Bucks' hard-left ownership is joining the caterwauling diaper-pin college student/Hollywood crybaby crowd.
Nice of the local taxpayers to provide for them, ain'a?
Nice of the local taxpayers to provide for them, ain'a?
The "Real" Steve Bannon? Try "Catholic"!!
Seems that the hot thing to do is to revile Steve Bannon as a racist and anti-Semite.
Well, then. How about reading what Bannon actually SAYS--and where he SAID it?
If you're Catholic, you'll see some very familiar terminology. If you're a Christian, you will be pleasantly surprised. If, on the other hand, you're a committed secularist, you'll see the same terminology and your head will explode. If you're a Communist you will go to "hate" mode immediately. (The latter two categories explain the MSM's revulsion for this guy.)
Finally, if you are AltRight, you go bonkers because Bannon uses the term "Judaeo-Christian." Suck it up, buttercups. He's right and you're wrong.
...That capitalism [which won WWII] really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism....
He transitions to the conflicts now apparent in the West, both external (ISIS) and internal (governance).
...I think that you’re seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken [...] from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief....
....But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.
One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism...The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism....is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive. And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”
Kinda puts Bannon in a whole new light.
More at the link.
UPDATE: Sykes, still auditioning for MSLSD (and perhaps his old life as a Lefty) swallows the MSM's take on Bannon whole, then regurgitates it. Of course, Charlie is not a "journalist."
Well, then. How about reading what Bannon actually SAYS--and where he SAID it?
If you're Catholic, you'll see some very familiar terminology. If you're a Christian, you will be pleasantly surprised. If, on the other hand, you're a committed secularist, you'll see the same terminology and your head will explode. If you're a Communist you will go to "hate" mode immediately. (The latter two categories explain the MSM's revulsion for this guy.)
Finally, if you are AltRight, you go bonkers because Bannon uses the term "Judaeo-Christian." Suck it up, buttercups. He's right and you're wrong.
...That capitalism [which won WWII] really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism....
He transitions to the conflicts now apparent in the West, both external (ISIS) and internal (governance).
...I think that you’re seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken [...] from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief....
....But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.
One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism...The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism....is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive. And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”
Kinda puts Bannon in a whole new light.
More at the link.
UPDATE: Sykes, still auditioning for MSLSD (and perhaps his old life as a Lefty) swallows the MSM's take on Bannon whole, then regurgitates it. Of course, Charlie is not a "journalist."
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Mike Rogers? Good Riddance
Apparently Mike Rogers, ex-GOP Congress-slime, was dumped from the Trump transition team.
Good.
This is "Lightbulb Mike"--the man most responsible for eliminating the incandescent bulbs around your home.
Screw that twit.
Good.
This is "Lightbulb Mike"--the man most responsible for eliminating the incandescent bulbs around your home.
Screw that twit.
Owen Is Right, Ya'Know: Pubbies Acting Stupid
Excerpt from an Owen essay on the election:
...Why would state legislators want to
undermine the bargain of Act 10 by increasing state spending on K-12?
To the citizens in districts that just decided to increase their own
taxes and spending with a referendum, state lawmakers would be layering
even more burden on them to pay for more spending in districts that did
not ask for it. For those of us citizens who live in districts that are
trying to control our district’s spending, lawmakers would be telling us
that our fiscal restraint is not appreciated by forcing us to pay for
more spending for which we did not ask.
In order to continue to allow Act
10 to work, legislators must restrain state spending on K-12 and let
local voters raise their own taxes if they so choose. If they decide to
increase state K-12 spending on top of the $804 million just approved by
the taxpayers, Wisconsin will never bring its tax burden in line with
the rest of the country.
State Republicans have earned
increasing majorities thanks to their steadfast advancement of
conservative policies. Now is not the time to go wobbly.
That phrase, "local control" comes to mind. Do the (R) Poobahs really think that Madison-centric rule is some sort of Golden Rule? If so, then just turn over the education budget to Tony Evers. May as well go all the way!
What Is "Conservatism"? Why Buckley-Bush-ism Failed
Penetrating essay here from Z on the topic of 'conservatism.' (Can't really go wrong when you start with a reference Oakeshott.)
...the traditional American conservatism...[ ].. is, in fact, an attitude or a temperament. It is a set of preferences that Michael Oakeshott spelled out a million years ago in his essay On Being Conservative. “To be conservative is to be disposed to think and behave in certain manners; it is to prefer certain kinds of conduct and certain conditions of human circumstances to others; it is to be disposed to make certain kinds of choices.” In other words, conservatism is a disposition....
Z claims that 'a disposition' is NOT identical to 'policy,' which, of course, is true. Policy based on 'conservatism' is necessarily short-lived, for policy is created in a 'time zone'--and as times move on, time-bound policy must either vanish or change.
For example: it was US policy that democratic-like governments would be implanted in states we defeated in WWII, specifically Germany and Japan. It worked. But that policy failed, miserably, in the Middle East after the defeat of Saddam. Continuing that 'policy'--even though by a distinctly non-conservative (Obama)--continues the failure, spectacularly. The US public, which is naturally 'conservative', saw that policy failure, and voted against it this year.
Z gives another example:
...In the Cold War, business friendly taxes and regulation, along with a muscular defense policy make perfect sense as a rebuttal to the dominant Progressive ideology. Once the Cold War ended, the justifications for Buckley-style conservatism ended. It became a body with no soul to animate it....
Conservatism grasps reality: the human race is fallen, and ideology cannot repair it.
...Inevitably, an ideology demands that the adherent accept things that are in direct contradiction with observable reality. That’s both the attraction and the defect of ideology. Those with a conservative temperament were always going to be skeptical of the projects championed by the Official Right....
We would add that such skepticism extends to projects championed by the Official Left, as Hillary found to her chagrin.
Hmmmmm.
...the traditional American conservatism...[ ].. is, in fact, an attitude or a temperament. It is a set of preferences that Michael Oakeshott spelled out a million years ago in his essay On Being Conservative. “To be conservative is to be disposed to think and behave in certain manners; it is to prefer certain kinds of conduct and certain conditions of human circumstances to others; it is to be disposed to make certain kinds of choices.” In other words, conservatism is a disposition....
Z claims that 'a disposition' is NOT identical to 'policy,' which, of course, is true. Policy based on 'conservatism' is necessarily short-lived, for policy is created in a 'time zone'--and as times move on, time-bound policy must either vanish or change.
For example: it was US policy that democratic-like governments would be implanted in states we defeated in WWII, specifically Germany and Japan. It worked. But that policy failed, miserably, in the Middle East after the defeat of Saddam. Continuing that 'policy'--even though by a distinctly non-conservative (Obama)--continues the failure, spectacularly. The US public, which is naturally 'conservative', saw that policy failure, and voted against it this year.
Z gives another example:
...In the Cold War, business friendly taxes and regulation, along with a muscular defense policy make perfect sense as a rebuttal to the dominant Progressive ideology. Once the Cold War ended, the justifications for Buckley-style conservatism ended. It became a body with no soul to animate it....
Conservatism grasps reality: the human race is fallen, and ideology cannot repair it.
...Inevitably, an ideology demands that the adherent accept things that are in direct contradiction with observable reality. That’s both the attraction and the defect of ideology. Those with a conservative temperament were always going to be skeptical of the projects championed by the Official Right....
We would add that such skepticism extends to projects championed by the Official Left, as Hillary found to her chagrin.
Hmmmmm.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Ricardo's Fanciful Fallacy
Need just one more reason to reject Ricardo's "free trade" fallacy?
How about this one:
...[Ricardo's] argument might sound convincing, until you ask a simple question: “So how do you turn a wine press into a spinning jenny?”. Answer? You don’t.
Ricardo’s model assumed that you could produce wine or cloth with only labour, but of course you can’t. You need machines as well, and machinery is specific to each industry. The essential machinery for making wine can’t be used to make anything else, if its use becomes unprofitable. It is either scrapped, sold at a large loss, or shipped overseas. Ditto a spinning jenny, or a steel mill: if making steel becomes unprofitable, the capital involved in its production is effectively destroyed....Forbes quoted at VoxPopuli
Plenty more at the link. As to 'destroyed,' look no further than Janesville's GM plant. Or Kenosha's AMC/Chrysler plant(s). Not to mention the tens of thousands of lives.
How about this one:
...[Ricardo's] argument might sound convincing, until you ask a simple question: “So how do you turn a wine press into a spinning jenny?”. Answer? You don’t.
Ricardo’s model assumed that you could produce wine or cloth with only labour, but of course you can’t. You need machines as well, and machinery is specific to each industry. The essential machinery for making wine can’t be used to make anything else, if its use becomes unprofitable. It is either scrapped, sold at a large loss, or shipped overseas. Ditto a spinning jenny, or a steel mill: if making steel becomes unprofitable, the capital involved in its production is effectively destroyed....Forbes quoted at VoxPopuli
Plenty more at the link. As to 'destroyed,' look no further than Janesville's GM plant. Or Kenosha's AMC/Chrysler plant(s). Not to mention the tens of thousands of lives.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
All in All, The Donald Is What We Expected
He loves him some TV time. And he's a twitidiot.
...Trump also balked when asked whether he’d carry out his campaign pledge to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton.
He said Clinton “did some bad things” and that he’s “going to think about it” — but that he is more eager to focus on health care, immigration and other policy matters.
“I don’t want to hurt them,” Trump said of the Clintons, noting he’d spoken to both Hillary and Bill Clinton since his victory. “They’re good people. I don’t want to hurt them.
And after all, What Difference--at This Point In Time--Does It Make??, eh, Donald?
Here he does a Scott Walker impersonation:
...Trump said he’s “fine” with same-sex marriage remaining legal across the country, and wouldn’t appoint Supreme Court judges with the goal of reversing that ruling.
“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done,” Trump said....
And finally, he does a Hildebeeste!!
...he favors ditching the Electoral College and handing the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. “I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win....
Fortunately, he'll get bored with the job in a year or so.
...Trump also balked when asked whether he’d carry out his campaign pledge to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton.
He said Clinton “did some bad things” and that he’s “going to think about it” — but that he is more eager to focus on health care, immigration and other policy matters.
“I don’t want to hurt them,” Trump said of the Clintons, noting he’d spoken to both Hillary and Bill Clinton since his victory. “They’re good people. I don’t want to hurt them.
And after all, What Difference--at This Point In Time--Does It Make??, eh, Donald?
Here he does a Scott Walker impersonation:
...Trump said he’s “fine” with same-sex marriage remaining legal across the country, and wouldn’t appoint Supreme Court judges with the goal of reversing that ruling.
“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done,” Trump said....
And finally, he does a Hildebeeste!!
...he favors ditching the Electoral College and handing the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. “I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win....
Fortunately, he'll get bored with the job in a year or so.
Chicago Deserves This
Interesting little video here of the buses which brought the 'spontaneous' demonstrators to Chicago.
A LOT of those buses are from Wisconsin: Badger, Miller, Lamers.
Nice to see the reverse-flow of sewage--from here to there instead of the opposite--eh??
A LOT of those buses are from Wisconsin: Badger, Miller, Lamers.
Nice to see the reverse-flow of sewage--from here to there instead of the opposite--eh??
Saturday, November 12, 2016
The Empire Will Strike Back
The Donald should have a food-taster. But even if he avoids the conventional challenges--not to exclude Polonium-10--he will have Congress to deal with. And they have their ways....
“I’m going to make another prediction,” he said. “This one is not based on a system; it’s just my gut. They don’t want Trump as president, because they can’t control him. He’s unpredictable. They’d love to have Pence — an absolutely down-the-line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I’m quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook.” --quoted at RedState
Granted, RedState is no friend of The Donald. But I happen to agree with that assessment.
The Empire will not be mocked.
“I’m going to make another prediction,” he said. “This one is not based on a system; it’s just my gut. They don’t want Trump as president, because they can’t control him. He’s unpredictable. They’d love to have Pence — an absolutely down-the-line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I’m quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook.” --quoted at RedState
Granted, RedState is no friend of The Donald. But I happen to agree with that assessment.
The Empire will not be mocked.
The BEST Reason To Repeal Dodd-Frank
If you need only one reason--the best reason--to repeal Dodd-Frank, here it is:
"I wouldn't want regulation to be repealed in total," --Blankfein, Chairman, Goldman Sachs
Blankfein has the US Gummint doing the heavy lifting for him.
"More intense regulatory and technology requirements have raised the barriers to entry higher than at any other time in modern history," Blankfein said in 2015. "This is an expensive business to be in, if you don't have the market share in scale. Consider the numerous business exits that have been announced by our peers as they reassessed their competitive positioning and relative returns."
The other big guys feel the same way. Jamie Dimon has praised Dodd-Frank for widening JP Morgan's "moat."
Maybe Blankfein and Dimon should be tossed into that 'moat.'
"I wouldn't want regulation to be repealed in total," --Blankfein, Chairman, Goldman Sachs
Blankfein has the US Gummint doing the heavy lifting for him.
"More intense regulatory and technology requirements have raised the barriers to entry higher than at any other time in modern history," Blankfein said in 2015. "This is an expensive business to be in, if you don't have the market share in scale. Consider the numerous business exits that have been announced by our peers as they reassessed their competitive positioning and relative returns."
The other big guys feel the same way. Jamie Dimon has praised Dodd-Frank for widening JP Morgan's "moat."
Maybe Blankfein and Dimon should be tossed into that 'moat.'
Friday, November 11, 2016
Reince, You BS Artist!
This is funny:
...Reince Priebus is running around saying it was the GOP data operations that got the Trump vote out on Tuesday. He was on the radio claiming that his team “knew what people ate for lunch, when they went to work and how they voted in the past” so they could target these voters and get them to the polls. He made it sound like they had studied all of us since birth so they could maximize their vote....
In the 10 days before the election, I got two political texts. Both from the (D) Party.
What did I have for lunch last Friday, Reince?
...Reince Priebus is running around saying it was the GOP data operations that got the Trump vote out on Tuesday. He was on the radio claiming that his team “knew what people ate for lunch, when they went to work and how they voted in the past” so they could target these voters and get them to the polls. He made it sound like they had studied all of us since birth so they could maximize their vote....
In the 10 days before the election, I got two political texts. Both from the (D) Party.
What did I have for lunch last Friday, Reince?
Between the Lines, the Election Meant Little
While this is Bloomberg--a distinctly left-ish 'news' source--you will get the idea quickly from just this one paragraph:
...President-elect Donald Trump could sign legislation proposed by Republicans that would put the agency under Congress’s thumb. Lawmakers could also overturn specific CFPB regulations, including one loathed by the industry that made it easier for consumers to sue their banks....
Note well: it's not "abolish" the agency; it's 'keep it, but under Congress' thumb.'
The CFPB is unnecessary and redundant, so it should be shitcanned. But Congress, on both sided of the aisle, want a redundant and unnecessary pile of expensive bureaucrats working for them in D.C. Increases their power, increases their ability to raise campaign funds...and on, and on.
Nothing really changed, eh?
...President-elect Donald Trump could sign legislation proposed by Republicans that would put the agency under Congress’s thumb. Lawmakers could also overturn specific CFPB regulations, including one loathed by the industry that made it easier for consumers to sue their banks....
Note well: it's not "abolish" the agency; it's 'keep it, but under Congress' thumb.'
The CFPB is unnecessary and redundant, so it should be shitcanned. But Congress, on both sided of the aisle, want a redundant and unnecessary pile of expensive bureaucrats working for them in D.C. Increases their power, increases their ability to raise campaign funds...and on, and on.
Nothing really changed, eh?
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Yawn....
The Soros money is being spent.
Hundreds of protesters took to the streets in downtown Milwaukee, and disrupted traffic Thursday night, November 10th -- voicing their concerns about the election -- upset with the fact that Donald Trump has been elected the 45th president of the United States....
Let 'em wander around down in Barrett-Town. Let 'em block the entrances of the BMO/Harris center and reduce the revenues of the Bucks (and their far-left ownership team.)
Don't care. Too bad, so sad. Stay out of high-speed traffic, kiddies....
Hundreds of protesters took to the streets in downtown Milwaukee, and disrupted traffic Thursday night, November 10th -- voicing their concerns about the election -- upset with the fact that Donald Trump has been elected the 45th president of the United States....
Let 'em wander around down in Barrett-Town. Let 'em block the entrances of the BMO/Harris center and reduce the revenues of the Bucks (and their far-left ownership team.)
Don't care. Too bad, so sad. Stay out of high-speed traffic, kiddies....
Fantasy Inauguration Day
Z-blogman's prediction for Inauguration Day:
...In January, Donald Trump will enter the Imperial Capital in a four horse chariot, wearing a laurel crown and painted toga. Behind him, in chains and rags, will be the members of NeverTrump. The great enemy of the people and the threat to the republic, Hillary Clinton, will be displayed in a wheeled cage so the citizens can throw rotten vegetables at her. After the festivals, the proscription lists will be posted around the city and the NeverTrump loons will be thrown into a pit....
Think the MSM will cover that?
...In January, Donald Trump will enter the Imperial Capital in a four horse chariot, wearing a laurel crown and painted toga. Behind him, in chains and rags, will be the members of NeverTrump. The great enemy of the people and the threat to the republic, Hillary Clinton, will be displayed in a wheeled cage so the citizens can throw rotten vegetables at her. After the festivals, the proscription lists will be posted around the city and the NeverTrump loons will be thrown into a pit....
Think the MSM will cover that?
Hannan on "Populism"
This is worth reading--for the #NeverTrump crowd AND for the Leftoids--who have something in common: their utter hatred of "populism"
For what it’s worth, I think only the second of
these assertions is wholly fair. But I can see why a gap has opened up
between government and governed, between the paese legale and the paese reale, between the smirking classes and the working classes. Into this gap have sprung populists of every hue...
Hannan sees the EU as a far more significant threat to Ordinary Europeans than the US Government is to Ordinary Americans, by the way. But, in either case, "populism" is not necessarily the pariah that the #NeverTrump/Communist Left" would want you to believe it is.
The
vilest slur in Brussels, the insult to end all insults, is “populist.”
Eurocrats spit it out, rather in the manner of a teenager at a party who
mistakenly takes a swig from a beer can that was being used as an
ashtray. Yet, monstrous as the word is in a Eurocrat’s vocabulary, he is
surprisingly vague about its meaning.
The one thing that he unequivocally understands
populism to signify is “something that other people like, but I don’t.”
Thus, calling for a referendum is populist. Accepting the result of a
referendum is populist. Free speech for Eurosceptics is populist. Tax
cuts are populist. Cutting waste is populist....
Umnnhh humnnnhhh.. In fact, it's a rather delicate balance.
...My point is that populism is not intrinsically a bad thing. It may be
either positive or negative according to context. The essential feature
of all populist movements is their belief that an elite is governing in
its own interests rather than that of the general population. To make an
obvious point, the validity of the populist argument depends on the
extent to which that assessment is accurate....
Some populist movements rely on scapegoating, on attributing every
misfortune to a privileged or powerful minority. These are the ugly
movements, the ones that offer anger and division rather than solutions.
“Are you poor? Are your children jobless? It’s not your fault! It’s all
the fault of international financiers/powerful foreigners/Jews/the one
percent!”...
Such populist movements depend on what we might call a piece of faulty
circuitry in the human brain: a tendency to see patterns where none
exist....
It is fair to state that the AltRight bunch is playing in the above sandbox to an uncomfortable degree.
[William Jennings] Bryan set the tone for every populist insurgency that was to follow in
the democratic world. Misfortune was not a part of the human condition;
it happened because someone somewhere was being selfish....
Here he presents the 'other side':
...Equally, though, let’s not pretend that oligarchy
is unknown in democracies. Many polities, from the Roman Republic
onwards, have retained the outward forms of representative government
while being captured by cliques. The Roman precedent was, indeed,
vividly in the minds of America’s Founding Fathers and informed many of
the checks they put in place to prevent a similar decline in the United
States.
Those checks worked. Unlike, say, the
near-contemporary French Republic, the American Republic did not follow
Rome into autocratic rule. But, even in an open democracy, there is a
natural tendency for people in power to rig the rules in their own
favor, to give themselves an institutional advantage....
Yes.
...Established political parties passing laws that
make it harder for newcomers to challenge them; big corporations using
the regulatory regime to erect barriers to entry; public-sector workers
ensuring that the system favors producers over consumers; mega-banks
persuading politicians to bail them out with taxpayers’ money—all these
are, in their ways, examples of oligarchy. And all of them are intrinsic
to modern politics, because human beings are naturally self-interested.
To the extent that they trigger a populist backlash, that backlash
might be considered a proportionate and necessary antibody.
To put it another way, a measure of populism is
inherent in any democratic system. The intensity and validity of the
phenomenon depend upon circumstances....
Ahh. That "delicate balance" thing!
Hannan sees 1) the Iraq War; 2) the bank-bailout; and 3) the Mass Immigration as the trigger(s) which began the successful Trump Revolt. Personally, I think that the Queer "Marriage", same-sex bathroom mandates, and ridiculous "global warming" bullshit regulations added fuel to the fire; but even more influential were the McConnell/Boehner cave-ins and the imbroglios of Hillary which seemed to go un-remarked by most of the Establishment (and yes, I'm looking at the Senate and House.)
...Put it all together and what do people see? A
political class that will send boys to die in distant lands on the basis
of, at best, a half-truth; that taxes the poor to bail out the rich;
and that supports an immigration policy designed for big business at the
expense of ordinary people.
Hannan sees the EU as a far more significant threat to Ordinary Europeans than the US Government is to Ordinary Americans, by the way. But, in either case, "populism" is not necessarily the pariah that the #NeverTrump/Communist Left" would want you to believe it is.
Is Comey a LOT Smarter Than We Think?
James Comey of the FBI famously (infamously??) announced, twice, that Hillary's emails were being investigated.
He also announced, twice, that "there was nothing to see here, move along".
Now, then. If you want to REALLY piss off the 'basket of despicables', make it look like someone is getting a big, big, big favor. And make sure they're pissed off just before Election Day.
So. Is Comey a lot smarter than he's letting on? I mean, you don't seriously think that HE thinks she's 'innocent,' do you??
He also announced, twice, that "there was nothing to see here, move along".
Now, then. If you want to REALLY piss off the 'basket of despicables', make it look like someone is getting a big, big, big favor. And make sure they're pissed off just before Election Day.
So. Is Comey a lot smarter than he's letting on? I mean, you don't seriously think that HE thinks she's 'innocent,' do you??
OK, Donald. Lock Her Up!
No doubt Obozo will try to issue pardons to the Hildebeeste for all the crimes she committed.
But there's a problem: she's committed far more crimes than he can list and pardon.
Lock her up. That will be a very useful signal to the rest of the grifters.
But there's a problem: she's committed far more crimes than he can list and pardon.
Lock her up. That will be a very useful signal to the rest of the grifters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
