Victor Davis Hanson explains how Obama has turned Aristotelian ethics on its head
Presidential ethics are now situational. Obama is calling for a shield law to protect reporters from the sort of harassment that his attorney general, Eric Holder, and the FBI practiced against Fox News and the Associated Press. Through such rhetoric, he remains a staunch champion of the First Amendment — even though he now has the ability to peek into the private phone records of millions of Americans.
The president is outraged that the IRS went after those deemed politically suspicious. So he sacked the acting head of the IRS, Steven Miller, who was scheduled to step down soon anyway. The administration remains opposed to any partisanship of the sort that might deny tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, founded by the president’s half-brother Malik, but would indefinitely delay almost all the applications from those suspected of tea-party sympathies. Consequently, Lois Lerner granted the former’s request in 30 days, but took the Fifth Amendment when asked the reasons for obstructing the applications of the latter. […]
One of the legacies of the Obama administration is presidential ethics as an entirely relative, abstract concept. Obama’s morality is to be judged by his professed aims, not his actual means of achieving them, thereby turning classical Aristotelian ethics on its head: Dreaming of doing the right thing becomes more important than actually doing it while awake. Apparently reporters who had their phones monitored are to be impressed that Obama is advocating a shield law to protect them from any future president not so ethical as Obama.
The problem, however, is not just that Obama’s declarations of moral intent are deemed more important than his concrete behavior, but also that his moral pieties serve as a psychological mechanism that offers exemption for his unethical conduct. Obama repeatedly declared that citing the bin Laden raid for partisan purposes would be “spiking the ball” of the worst sort — and thereby was freed to do just that without any guilt over his own hypocrisy, much less a worry that there was something untoward in using a national-security operation for campaign advantage.
This is where Jeff’s oft posted examinations of the rape of language is most important. What we see in Obama is real hypocrisy … professing a rule or principle that other people should abide by while he is exempt from it. It is not, as the Left uses it, when a person falls short of their own adopted set of standards.
It’s the difference between someone stumbling and falling down during a foot race, but getting up and trying to continue, with a person who extolls the virtues and character-building of a foot race, but then has a limousine ferry them to the finish line where they are declared the winner.
Obama has never been a good man in the most basic sense, someone who operates from a moral set of principles. And he’s been allowed to get away with it because the most influential Fourth Estate has been fully invested in his success …
The new ethical transparency means that there is no conflict of interest when Susan Rice appears on ABC news programs that her husband once produced. Nor should anyone worry that the brother of one of the president’s closest advisers heads CBS News, or that the president of ABC News has a sister in a high position in the Obama administration, or that the wife of press secretary Jay Carney is the national correspondent of ABC’s Good Morning America. Under the new ethics, to point out any such connection is at best illiberal, and perhaps motivated by darker impulses; but to discuss with your spouse or sibling how you will cover his or her televised performance is a necessary means to an exalted ethical end.
What is the short-term effect of such postmodern ethical behavior? Not much. The media will determine publicly that the Benghazi, IRS, AP, and Fox scandals, to the extent that they remain in the public view much longer as scandals, were the products of overzealous subordinates, while privately concluding that too much public attention to them might aid the illiberal agenda of conservative Republicans. Thus the better — indeed, the more moral — course is to let the scandals go the way of Fast and Furious and Solyndra.
I think their reasoning, to the degree it is ever consciously examined, goes something like the following: Is pursuing a rogue IRS or a John Mitchell–like attorney general really worth wounding the second term of a reelected liberal president? Do we really need another Watergate or Iran-Contra, when the possible outcome this time around is not stopping the regressive efforts of a Richard Nixon or a Ronald Reagan, but rather endangering the political survival of the first black president, and the first northern liberal to be elected president since John Kennedy a half-century earlier — and, with him, a long-overdue progressive agenda that so far has given us needed higher taxes, socialized medicine, more entitlements, and liberal social initiatives? […]
But here too Obama is not worried. He assumes that if Congress and the White House return to Republican control, the media will revert to their traditional watchdog role, resuscitated and on the scent once more of a lack of transparency, the revolving door, efforts to stifle the press, Guantanamo and drones, lobbyists in government, and the politicization of the federal government.
There is a reason that even the thought of the libertarian Koch Brothers buying the Tribune’s newspapers has caused so much sturm und drang, The Left will not tolerate any dissent from their dogma nor any retreat of their influence. They have captured both academia and the media by which they control government and culture. And as we’ve seen in the IRS hearings, they welcome any use of blunt government tools to suppress The Other. The Left’s definition of “public good” does not include teaching people about the Constitution or holding the idea that marriage benefits the community.
This is going to get worse.
“There is no longer such a thing as presidential ethics.”
I disagree. I think that when a Republican, or (God willing) a conservative sits in the White House, “the people” will demand Presidential ethics like crazy.
Presidential ethics are now situational.
This phrase bugs me. All ethics are “situational” and “relative,” in the sense that you have to evaluate the situation at hand and apply the correct principle or balance of principles. Ethics are never a matter of applying a concrete algorithm or zero-tolerance policy. What’s ethical is always relative to the situation.
What he means is that ethics have become something you talk about, not something you do. Which, that’s exactly what Alinsky said: people always cloak their actions in the language of morals, because there’s no solid moral core to adhere to.
Obama is just practicing what he preached. How’s that for integrity?
And he’s been allowed to get away with it because the most influential Fourth Estate has been fully invested in his success …
They’re also as morally vacuous as he is, so hey, no problemo!
“Obama has never been a good man in the most basic sense, someone who operates from a moral set of principles.”
That pretty much explains everything rotten thing he’s done as president. So why do we bother giving him the benefit of the doubt with each new scandal?
One might be able to use the “noumenal” vs. “actual” distinction regarding the Obazmic phenomena.
Well damn, Di. There’s not much left to say after that. Is there?
Well damn, Di. There’s not much left to say after that. Is there?
I always strive to have the last word.
Indeed
Fixed.
OT, but Jeez! I’m watching the news and Obama can’t lose.
The unemployment rate went up, but that’s good news because it means more people are becoming confident in the economy and re-entering the work force.
Dunno Slart, I’d beg to differ e.g. Silent Cal or Reagan.
that’s good news because it means more people are becoming confident in the economy and re-entering the work force.
Jesus H Keerist … so when did we stop being RAAAAACIST when we pointed out Labor Participation stats?
Isn’t the difference Slart draws our attention to the difference between the ethics inhering in a man, an individual as individual, and not inhering in an office, i.e., the Presidency, Darleen? Otherwise, why have procedures for impeachment?
As Nick sdferr.
“All ethics are “situational” and “relative,” ”
Really, that’s true?
I could understand them being subjective, as in different professions being held to different standards, but not situational, as in the same person having different standards in different situations.
You’re going to have to expand for us slow ones in the back of the class.
As Nick went right over my head Ernst. What’s it mean?
Then again, sdferr, the individual elected is sworn-in to the office of Presidency with some very specific moral and ethical obligations. Said individual can either hold them up, creating ethical expectations of other people yet to hold the office — or turn it into just another crony, despotic place of rewarding one’s friends and destroying one’s enemies as we are currently witnessing.
The level of incestuousness between the White House and media was never this bad … even accounting for media’s praetorian guard routine around FDR and JFK.
Lee
Far be it for me to put words in di’s mouth, but I believe she means that we have a set of moral ethics that we use as a template, but each event creates a context/situation that makes us also use our reasoning power by which we apply that template so we try to get closer to what is the goal .. doing good.
For instance … our ethics say “Lying is wrong” … however, in the context of preventing a larger evil … like lying to a robber on where you keep your valuables to lying to Nazis that you have Jews hidden in the basement … we reason that our basic template cannot be applied.
That’s why the Commandment is not “thou shall not kill” but “thou shall not murder.” Context is what makes killing a murder, not the singular act of taking a life.
You’re going to have to expand for us slow ones in the back of the class.
Not to put words in di’s mouth, but I think her point comes into play with her statement that “What’s ethical is always relative to the situation.”
I look at it this way: it’s one thing to say that it’s unethical to let a man die, when you have the ability to save him. But depending on the situation, that may not necessarily hold true. If the man is in a great deal of pain and will remain so, it may be more ethical to let him go. If he’s in the middle of a minefield, you need to weigh the ethics of saving him against the ethics of risking a rescue team.
Adhering to a set of ethical principles is necessary, but not sufficient. You also need to exercise the judgement to apply those principles appropriately, and what’s appropriate in one situation may not be in another.
At least, that’s my stab at it.
Darleen’s not putting words in di’s mouth — she’s stealing them from mine!
I seem to keep running into the same problem lately (in my internal conversation that is) of the fundamental meaning of what we sometimes call “civil society”, in the context of what we also term “liberal society”, the latter being what the Founders and Framers took to be the aim of their constructions. One of the peculiar things about our civil society term is this: that people seem to want to stress the goodness or right behavior sense of the term civil, whereas the more important aspect of the idea of a civil society within the context of a liberal society is that civil society allows for wrongdoing, of necessity, if there is to be a liberal society at all.
It’s strange, right? At least it strikes me as strange on its face. But there it is.
In order to be liberal, i.e., free, having liberty of choice, of movement, of action, etc., we assume people will be free to do wrong. The moment we move socially to remove this freedom to do wrong, we lose any hope of a liberal society in fact.
Jacques Barzun explained it as well as anybody, Lee:
– “The Bugbear of Relativism” (1989)
Niccolo Machiavelli or “Old Nick” sdferr, take your pick.
I digress on the mention of Machiavelli, having recently run into a pleasing account of Machiavelli from H. Mansfield. I relay it here:
*** Question: . . . I was wondering whether Harvey would want to discuss what is it that Machiavelli learned from Roman history or Hebrew politics or Christian politics, not so much about the political tactics of propaganda or the different ways of [acquiring? coming to?] power, but about human nature, is something really fundamental about human nature that he could think was true (or not) but that he thought perhaps that it was true? [pause] Do you have any thoughts about that?
Mansfield: Um, that, uh, the Human All Too Human in human nature is, uh, is human nature. And the rest is, uh, aspiration and delusion. So, uh, there is a kind of identity between what Plato and Aristotle saw, and Machiavelli, but, — except that Machiavelli just denies — he denies that we can afford moral virtue. [pause] “I’m sorry. I can’t afford it.” [audience laughs] “I would like to.”
I was once in New Hampshire looking for real estate, and uh, there’s a, was an architect we knew who took us around to a man who had a lake he was developing, and uh, this architect wanted him to give us a special plot, and uh, um, y’know, to distinguish it from all the other plots in the development it would be much better, much larger, more advantageous, and the real estate man looked at us and said, uh, “I can’t afford it.” As he said that I looked over his shoulder at his Rolls Royce parked out in the yard. So, uh, that’s Machiavellian. ***
Ok, but aren’t we then talking about ethics being prioritized rather than situational? As in, lying to a Nazi about the Jew in the basement doesn’t make lying a good thing, it just means it becomes a necessary thing in the service of a greater ethical priority.
Maybe I’m just splitting hairs, it just strikes me describing ethics as situational leaves room for a lot of license.
Squid and Darleen and Jacques Barzun got what I was saying.
I’ve always been wary of the term “moral relativism” because it is inaccurate. The counter-culture kept saying that “what’s moral for you isn’t necessary moral for me,” meaning that “morality” was just a way of voicing a strong opinion, and furthermore, using terms such as Right and Wrong was just too judgey and stuff.
From a practical perspective, each individual does have a responsibility (and ability) to evaluate what’s right and wrong, but those evaluations may or may not be based on the truth. Or the TRVTH. Nor do all “moral codes” lead to the same end, and it’s also possible to come up with an answer that’s dead wrong.
So I dispute VDH’s usage of “situational ethics” to mean “the mere appearance of ethics.”
describing ethics as situational leaves room for a lot of license.
How do you understand the term “situational”?
Unless it means “whatever I feel like doing at the moment,” then “situational” adequately conveys the meaning “dependent on the situation.”
Another way to describe “prioritizing” would be to say that you are relating your ethics to the situation you happen to find yourself in before you apply them.
The Wall Street firm of Grayson Moorhead and “situational ethics” observed.
Doesn’t that then indeed make ethics a term of intent then. As in, Obama is being ethical because he believes his lying, cheating and stealing serve a greater good.
Dammit, scratch one ‘then”…
dicentra says June 7, 2013 at 10:02 am
All ethics are “situational” and “relative,”
I don’t like “all” here. I can see lying, killing, and theft as having situational modifiers, that could mitigate or even reverse the ethical judgment.
For other ethical situations, mitigating factors sound more like excuses. A lot of ethics relating to sex fall in this category. When, for example, is the right ethical time to cheat on one’s spouse?
Doesn’t that then indeed make ethics a term of intent? As in, Obama is being ethical because he believes his lying, cheating and stealing serve a greater good.
That’s not ethics; that’s the pursuit of power for its own sake, cloaked in moral language.
Obama has a Messiah complex wherein his very existence is a Boon To Mankind, and I suppose you could say he believes that his actions serve a greater good.
But his beliefs did not arise from a conscious decision to weigh this and that and the other, and then come to a particular conclusion. Instead, he is driven by his intense, insatiable appetite for glory and power; Leftism provided an ideal framework for him to indulge his appetites (just as all totalitarian systems do). No doubt he “believes” that he’s acting morally, but that’s just his vanity telling pretty little lies to his power-lust.
Ethics are a matter of intent only if your intent is actually good. Here’s where you need a deity or other objective judge to provide the measuring stick. If you are filled with agape toward your fellow men, then you’ll probably do right by them, assuming that you have enough facts and experience to make a good call.
If your intent is to herd men like cattle? Not so much.
When, for example, is the right ethical time to cheat on one’s spouse?
When the SS officer says he’ll turn a blind eye to the Jews in your attic as long as you sleep with him.
A situation that actually happened, BTW.
The decision about the ethics of hiding Jews in one’s attic previously weighed the need to lie to Nazis who inquired about them or they wouldn’t be hiding in the attic in the first place.
Obama believes social justice is the greater good, that’s his morality and guide and you don’t know how those beliefs arose. I don’t see how you can say he is acting unethically if ethics are situational. He believes he’s doing the greater good (arguably), regardless your assertions of his motives.
LB? At the risk of summoning the electric hamster, I’ll give you a simple one. I am ethically against abortion, but if it was the case that my daughters life was in jeapordy? I’d opt out of that particular ethic that once.
and if I have morals/ethics wrong, don’t listen to me anyway. What do I know?
dicentra says June 7, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Sex under threat of death/imprisonment is cheating?
One thing I’ll say for the Nazi’s: they’ve totally changed the landscape of ethical hypotheticals…
Blitz, I wouldn’t really characterize that as an ethical dilemma. But obviously I’m struggling with the concept. ;-)
Obama has no core beliefs that I have been able to suss out. Deeds must follow words and in that case he is all over the map.
Blitz says: I am ethically against abortion, but if it was the case that my daughters life was in jeapordy? I’d opt out of that particular ethic that once.
The church has your back on that. It used to be the life of the child was paramount and the mother’s life was secondary. Certainly the best outcome is to have no death, but if the mother’s life is in jeopardy due to the pregnancy being brought to term, then family makes the call. It isn’t a sin to save the life of the mother, but she should be aware that she may need counseling for a long, long time and that she shouldn’t punish herself, especially if she has other children to raise. her children don’t need to be orphans and her husband doesn’t need to be a widower.
But Leigh? IS it ethics or morals, LB and I want to know.
Can’t we just call him a bloody liar and talk about haggis? I mean really. The man uses words that are the exact opposite of what they mean ( Let me be clear comes directly to mind ), and then goes on to publically pay lip service to the Constitution which is the one damned thing he hates most in this world.( with the possible exception of Mooshelle, yes I went there)
Sorry for the rambling, it’s been a long hard day.
Sex with someone other than your spouse is cheating by definition.
It’s the situation that makes it relative to the absolute Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. i.e. still not a good thing, but a better thing than say, Lancelot and Guenevere near the other extreme, or volunteering to be the mistress of a S.S. officer for the material benefit of silks and chocolate.
Isn’t ethics applied morality, so to speak?
It’s Friday, Blitz. You’re allowed to feel frazzled. You also need to start nagging, er, subtly reminding, the daughters that Father’s Day is on the 16th and how you really would like a nice meal out somewhere. Or hockey tickets if the Bruins don’t get their asses kicked by my sucky Penguins tonight. But I digress.
Ethics are the building blocks of morals. I went to Catholic college so I will be oblique, like the priests.
Obama is a lying liar what lies, to quote a certain electric hamster. He is The Lord of the Flies, not the Anti-Christ.
Ernst, I’m really not sure. Always thought so, but this thread has me thinking they could be 2 seperate but equal things. Ima look it up.
HA!! Thanks for that Leigh. Thing is? Yes, they know it’s daddys day, and yes, they have plans. Thing is? Our family always does food for b’days, moms day,dads day Maemorial day etc. I may not have to buy it this time? But guess who cooks.
The most basic, straightforward statement of ethics that most of us are familiar with is the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Under this test, Obama fails miserably once he became The Man.
Obama is a “Head, I win. Tails, you lose” kind of a guy.
“Ethics are the building blocks of morals”
Yes. And this is why I’m a little confused on that. Bricks help build a building, but when it’s finished, we call it a brick building. I’ve always thought they were one and the same, but now? Maybe not so much. After all,there’s the mortar, the infrastructure (2x4s, beams and the like ) and other things that someone who can actually nail 2 boards together can tell you ( I’m inept).
There’s more to that…I honestly believe that people are born with certain tendancies. I know that some people are just born evil, helping raise one for 5 years. Bastard raped my daughter and stabbed his mother before he was 10. So isn’t it possible that people like us here at PW are born this way?
May not be making any sense, doing the best I can but I don’t have the book learning that y’all do.
Morals generally refer to the expectations in society of how its members will conduct themselves. Obviously, ours slipped off the rails somewhere in the past.
Ethics are not flexible.
The problem is that the two terms are generally referred to as synonyms which is misleading at best and deliberate at worst.
“Situational morals” might be a better way to phrase what VDH is calling “situational ethics”.
YES!!! Thank you. And sorry LB, That’s what I meant, had the words confused.
I don’t see how you can say he is acting unethically if ethics are situational. He believes he’s doing the greater good (arguably), regardless your assertions of his motives.
It’s fallacious to assume that Obama is being “ethical” just because he’s doing what needs to be done to achieve his goals. He’s not TRYING to be ethical: he’s trying to be powerful.
How do I know that?
Because people who are trying to be powerful instead of ethical behave as he behaves.
People who are trying to be ethical instead of powerful do NOT.
I honestly believe that people are born with certain tendencies.
If a particular part of your brain is damaged — whether at birth or later — you are incapable of remorse and ethical behavior. The law doesn’t permit us to clinically identify such people and put them down as rabid dogs, but we prolly should, sometimes.
Oh, My Bruins are so NOT going to win tonight Leigh. Penguins kicked their collective butts last game and only a miracle performace by Rask allowed them to win.
If we can solve the Nature vs. Nurture riddle at PW, Jeff will never have another fund-raiser.
As far as my opinion goes, I believe some people are just bad, evil even and they are born that way. M. Scott Peck, MD has written about the problem of evil rather extensively. His book “People of the Lie” is about evil people who are in our everyday lives. It may be out of print, but it should be at the library. He is a psychiatrist, btw.
Our society has been nurturing the victimhood meme for quite a while now. I used to do a lot of work with people who were alcoholics (in-patient) and part of the 12 step program is to quit blaming the past for one’s drunkenness. People called each other out in group for having “pity parties” for themselves. Not anymore. There’s more boo-hooing than at a funeral these days. I quit doing that kind of work probably 20 years ago since I couldn’t stand it anymore.
There are also persons who are truly good. The drawback for them is, for every giver there are ten takers. Our government has been legislating our morality for many years. You WILL volunteer! You WILL ‘give back’! (whatever that means).
It makes me tired.
I hate to say it, but the ONLY team to lose a 3 game lead in the past was the Bruins and that was just a few years ago.
Sorry man.
But di? shouldn’t that also apply to people that are born to be conservative? I don’t mean that politically, at least not in the formative years, but I see children all the time. Some are polite to a fault, others will bite you for saying no.
This is just spitballing something that I’ve really come to believe. No brain damage neccessary.
“Situational morals” might be a better way to phrase what VDH is calling “situational ethics”.
I object to using “morals” in this context as well.
Sociopaths don’t think in terms of doing good or evil — they think in terms of getting what they want. If a Wall Street tycoon breaks the rules to get richer, quicker, he’s not motivated by “the greater good” but by greed. He can certainly lie to himself and others about what he’s doing and why, but it isn’t a case of “situational” anything except opportunism.
“Presidential ethics are now window-dressing” is a better rephrasing of VDH’s line.
No Leigh, it’s 3 times. Toronto won once, lost once. I refuse to speak of blowing a 3 game lead AND being up 3-0 in game 7. Didn’t happen, I wasn’t there, didn’t see it and refuse to acknolewdge it * spit *
No brain damage neccessary.
I believe this is true. Some people are just rotten, evil, people and should have been killed in the crib. History is full of tales of murderous children. We used to lock them up and throw away the key. Not anymore.
Yes, our dispositions are largely inborn: timid, outgoing, rebellious, obedient. It shows up long before parents expect to see such strong personal traits.
Having an inborn disposition only means that’s your starting place, the hand you’re dealt. I don’t know how much that plays a role in your eventual political orientation.
Dr. Sanity’s three-part series on the development of the self makes a good case for psychological development being the factor that makes us lean one way or the other. Even then, you’d be hard-pressed to say that one type of person will always lean left, etc.
Oh, man! I feel your pain. But, not enough not to rub it in if the Pens win tonight. Which I better say a Hail Mary or 20 for.
“tired”
Me too. I see con men and women,nasty little kids that will steal something they don’t even understand, people that fight the bill even if they come in under estimate. I’m done, but where else do I go? NOT back to teaching, that’s for sure.
Thanks Di. I’ll read that in the morning when I’m fresh. I never meant politically, was just using the term as ” someone like us ”
I’ve always thought that at birth our ( Thank you for the word ) dispositions were inbred, just need proof because when I talk about it? people think I’m nutz
Damn. Gotta go. Moms toilet is spouting. later folks!!
That’s beccause Rousseau flatters our egos, whereas Hobbes disconcerts us.
HoustonDC, we have a problem.To which DC replies,
I find your lack of trust disturbing
Also, something about Miniluv.
I found Rousseau disconcerting because he comes off as a much shinier, more self aware, L. Ron Hubbard who was consequently taken far more seriously by far more people.
Seriously, it’s getting harder and harder to NOT read that as a veiled warning for folks to tmind your Ps their Qs if they know what’s good for them.
The definitive word on situational ethics.
Veiled warning? I’m having a hard time not seeing it as an outright threat, considering the context of the three specific scandals going on.
It appears to me they are daring us because they’re ready. They want us to start rebelling now they have capability to track us individually, the DHS is all armed up along with the Dept Ed, the EPA, and the railroad retirement board, drone strikes against Americans are policy, the country has been balkanized, and the rest of the world is mired in their own problems.
These are getting to be very dangerous times indeed.
LB, it IS an outright threat posed in sweet words. Anyway, it was just a broken float arm, mom freaked. Fixed
“We have applied a full body ‘check’ to the Constitution, also to any abnormally intrusive investigations and on ‘balance’ we will only target those who oppose the commonsense solutions we are finally applying to our problems with the intransigence in certain politicized quarters.”
I’m inclinded to agree with you, Lee.
Which is why to my mind, Ulstermann and this Hagmann fellow newrouter linked are best seen as agitprop provacatuers.
In fact they may be the same fellow:
Ulster- Hag(ue)- mann
Or is that too Conspiracy Theory of me?
Jiggity jig.
Though in light of what transpired in the 2012 election I view the “U-Mann” as more of the magician’s waving hand distracting the audience from the doings of the hidden hand.
I’m not sure they are as ready as they think they are.
I may be just foolish, but I still don’t see anything that negates the huge portion of the population that is both armed and wary. You can’t deal with an irate armed citizenry with a few SWAT-style teams and a billion bullets. Most of this strikes me as an attempt at contingency planning, and the government buying up bullets to reduce availability and drive up the price.
What they are really counting on is dragging this out for 10-20 more years. At that point there won’t be so many to oppose them, and they may have turned more young people against guns so that they can either ignore the 2nd with impunity, or amend it away.
Point being, mondamay, if every current gun owner teaches his/her kids and grand kids the principles and truths behind the 2d amendment, in 10-20 years we’ll have increased our numbers.
I know it wasn’t very romantic, but I gave my wife Hi-Viz sights for her .22-45 and a lifetime NRA membership for her birthday. And my son a one year membership, just because.
I think we’re being out-bred, and anyway young people are leaving the rural areas and ‘burbs for the cities. Time is not on our side. Government doesn’t have to do anything, but hope America stays dopey for a few more years while trends continue.
We’re not being out-bred.
Google or bing “Roe Effect.”
Education/acculturation/assimilation (to cover all the bases) is another matter.
Rural population decline predates the Great Depression. The bigger concern, relative to population trends, is the blueing of the suburbs.
The “Roe effect” is an argument from logic, not observation. Low-information voters don’t abort, they simply have their kids out of wedlock because with three you get welfare and don’t have to work.
“What they are really counting on is dragging this out for 10-20 more years. ”
Perhaps that’s their plan, but I don’t think they (or we) have 10-20 more years.
“I found Rousseau disconcerting”
There’s a nice parody of Rousseau (or at least a Rousseauvian philosopher) in one of the novels in Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin series.
Minor spoiler: it doesn’t end well for him.
We may have the Roe effect but they’ve got comprehensive immigration reform. This is what they did in the UK – intentionally bring in immigrants to ensure the conservatives politicians were marginalized.
“I’m not sure they are as ready as they think they are.”
Ready for what? To declare martial law and gat their full on police state launched?
Oh, I think their are damn ready for a crisis not to waste.
Unfortunately I don’t think the Roe effect matters. Proggies are a product of nurture, not nature. And as that Russian feller said, if we started right now with a brand new and powerful education effort, it would still be 15-20 years before it paid off.
One, we aren’t even talking about a new education effort (other than home schooling), and we don’t have 20 years if we did.
Di? thank you for the essay. I found many parts eye opening, and although I’m not even close to an expert, tend to agree. However?
” Narcissism alone cannot explain all of human behavior, let alone all of the evil in the world”
Is exactly what I’ve been saying. I do not agree there’s a parental role in the nature v nurture argument.( In extremely early childhood)Again, I know parents with children, raised the same way. One is polite, intelligent if not quick, the other is a bloody monster.
Again, I’m no expert, but I have been an early childhood educator. I can only report what I’ve seen and why it forms my opinion.
“Oh, I think their are damn ready for a crisis not to waste.”
So are a whole lot of us LB. I don’t truly think it will come, but ready? we are. I’m too damned old to not fight for my kids and grandkids, so if it comes, it comes.
I’d rather it didn’t.
I know parents with children, raised the same way. One is polite, intelligent if not quick, the other is a bloody monster.
But if the parents were abusive or negligent, you’d have two bloody monsters.
There very definitely IS a role for parents from Day 1. Infants raised in orphanages who are fed and clothed but not cuddled either die from despair or grow up to be bloody monsters.
What parents cannot control is the innate disposition, whether the kid is naturally timid or gregarious, rebellious or compliant.
Which is why you can get decent kids out of rotten parents and rotten kids out of good parents.
We’re engendered, not assembled like androids.
Ok Di, I can agree with that, but only because of this…
“What parents cannot control is the innate disposition, whether the kid is naturally timid or gregarious, rebellious or compliant.”
Becuse this is what I’ve been clumsily saying all along.
Possibly a little late to this discussion, but Jacques Barzun was not saying what you (and he) assumed you were saying.
The proper translation of that Commandment is “Thou shalt not murder” and that changes everything. Murder, the improper and unjustifiable killing of another, can be absolutely forbidden, because none of the exceptions you cite fall in that category.
Report: Homeschooling Growing Seven Times Faster than Public School Enrollment
“So are a whole lot of us LB. I don’t truly think it will come, but ready? we are”
You’ll pardon me if I don’t find your [over]confidence comforting.
It’s not overconfidence. If anything, it’s sheer terror and a reluctant willingness. But if it comes, it comes.
Orphanages were the norm for ages until the reform movements of the 50s and 60s. I personally know a number of people who grew up in orphanages and have not only thrived, but are prosperous adults with healthy egos and families. I have stated my preference for a return to orphans homes on this blog a number of times. The children are fed, clothed, schooled and taught a trade and a faith. It beats living with teenage mom and her revolving door of boyfriends and moving all the time to beat the landlord out of this month’s rent. The orphan’s home offers stability that mom can’t offer, and it meets the child’s basic needs which mother often cannot.
An area of human behavior that definitely needs more study is resiliency. Two people from the same family can be exposed to the same stressors or reinforcement and react in ways that are diametrically opposed. It is a difficult area to research since there is limited data available and it is difficult to construct experiments with proper controls. Another reason it isn’t studied much is the lack of drama. Abnormal psychology gives us all a chance to point and to stare, figuratively if not literally. One of the reasons I like to watch the show “I Survived” is to hear the recollections of the people who lived and how they coped with some truly horrific situations. Many times these people were out with friends or forced into situations with another victim who didn’t survive. The survivors kept their wits about them. The victims, not so much.
I mean, maybe you are a member of an organized militia with a command structure that you have trained with in tactics using encrypted communications and have access to armored vehicles, helicopters, explosives, and countermeasures to all the above like the government you’ll be fighting has, but all I got is a deer rifle and an attitude.
I’ll fight… but win? I wouldn’t take that for granted.
Actually LB? None of the above. I am willing however to rescue my firearms out of the various lakes and rivers I’ve dropped them accidently into, and fight. What I CAN do is take a mosquitos ass out at 100 yards.
You honestly think the military will follow O’bumblefuck? I don’t. And even if some do? there will be many that desert and change sides ( This is in a Hot zone situation, not just martial law )
Winning? Who cares. We fight for whats RIGHT, not what’s easy.
“But if it comes, it comes.”
Indeed. I was responding to you saying “so are we [ready]”.
Leigh, I really have no comment on that because I take your authority on the subject as a given. However?
Bruins 1 Penguins 0
‘ nuff said
You’re ready LB…So am I and maybe a million others. I still don’t see my comment as overconfident, but maybe you’re reading something into it I never meant. I can be vague at times. It’s all cool.
Yeah, effing Pens anyway. What a heartbreaker.
Sorry Leigh, I really am. Like Andre the giant in “The Princess Bride” I really wanted you to have a fighting chance, or something along those lines anyway.
Shackleton and Co. lived off penguin and seal blubber for a long time, long enough they’d had more than enough of it at their rescue, and wanted for nothing so much as a warm bowl of oatmeal.
I wasn’t necessarily describing the military, I was describing LAPD, ATF, FBI, ICE, EPA, DHS, ED, USMS, CIA, etc.
And while you may be able to take a mosquitos ass out at 100 yards, they can take out your house with a drone from a computer console a thousand miles away.
I’m on your side man, I just want you to be realistic.
I AM realistic LB. I wouldn’t expect to survive. Just knowing I’ve fought the good fight is enough…well, that and getting my kids/grandkids the hell out of it.
I’m also well versed in camo, up to and including ghilly suit materials. In any hastily made militia, I’d be designated as sniper. Not bragging, fact.
I know you’re on my side, but you have to understand. There are a lot more of US than them. When the fight starts, many more will join US and desert from them.
GOD I hope this never happens.
I saw a year or so ago, where a team of explorers had found a case or two of Shackleton’s booze and were auctioning it off. Bidding started way up there so I passed on it.
Leigh, last I heard? that was put back where they found it. That was a while ago, so…
Was it? I haven’t ever heard a follow up story on it.
I’d have to bing it, but I remember something about it.
“You honestly think the military will follow O’bumblefuck? I don’t.”
Nor do I.
Unfortunately, I also don’t believe that any such scenario would lead to a restoration of the republic.
http://www.slashgear.com/antarctic-explorer-sir-ernest-henry-shackletons-rare-scotch-returned-to-the-frozen-wilds-21266049/
Shackleton’s booze.
Nor do I spy. The shame of it being thaht we’ve lost the last great hope of mankind. I mean that sincerely.
“…well, that and getting my kids/grandkids the hell out of it.
Yeah, that’s the rub.
“There are a lot more of US than them. When the fight starts, many more will join US and desert from them.”
If the fight starts, assumptions like that are dangerous.
Y’all are ton of info. Can someone tell me about “nasty brutal and short” and where the quote came from? Binging it comes up like millions.
“Unfortunately, I also don’t believe that any such scenario would lead to a restoration of the republic.”
Exactly right.
Plus, I can’t really think of any such scenario not helping the progg agenda. They WANT a police state.
“nasty brutal and short”
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207
Tangentially related: does anyone have any idea of how VDH managed to get tenure? In California?
I’m not disputing that it was deserved; quite the contrary.
Lee? You know the demographics, you know the statistics of gun owners in this Country. MOST of us are without a doubt conservatives.
IF the fecal matter meets the rotary oscillator? Even if HALF bunker down and cower? the other half will join. This is not an assumption. Maybe a guess, I’ll grant that. At that? even a quarter will suffice. ” A rifle behind every blade of grass “
“They WANT a police state.”
I’d say that they think they want it. Historical examples abound as to what happens to such types once a hardcore police state comes on the scene.
Thank you Spy. I’m afraid that’s what we’re headed to. Not in our lifetimes, but with the Western worl slidin (HEAD FIRST)into marxism/Socialism I’ma thinkin’ the fall of the Roman Empire.
He received his Ph.D. at Stanford when he was only 27 years old. Perhaps he was grandfathered in?
But Spy? NO!! They refuse to acknowledge that the bolsheviks were the first against the wall. Proggies eat their own
Hmm.. looks like he got his PhD in classics, only later making a sidestep into history. That might explain how he slid in; none of the proggy types pay any attention whatsoever to classics.
“I’ma thinkin’ the fall of the Roman Empire.”
Oh, yeah. To paraphrase Santayana, those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. Incompetently.
We’ve got the Proscriptions of Sulla, except that Eligabalus is already at the helm.
I believe VDH is or was a democrat for quite some time. That would be a help, too.
California wasn’t always like this. Remember, Reagan was governor here once. Plus, VDH is at Fresno state, which until very recently was deep red. The central valley still is for the most part, except for the larger urban areas. Which, unfortunately, Fresno is becoming.
Fresno is full of Mexicans which would turn the place blue in a heartbeat.
I’m 99 44/100% certain that he wouldn’t get tenure (or even a PhD) in the history department of any major university today.
HA!! I have no clue what that means spy, I’m not well read. honestly, I’m too tired today, but I will look that up tomorrow, sounds like something I would like to know about
He’s talking about that old ad for Ivory soap, Blitz.
Cali=boned. See? I can do math!!
“I believe VDH is or was a democrat for quite some time. That would be a help, too”
You really do talk out your ass sometimes.
Oh, I knew THHAT leigh, I was talking about his earlie SULLA comment
No, I don’t Lee. I’m positive I read it somewhere.
I wish you’d start smoking again. You’ve been a real bitch-bag for weeks now.
“We’ve got the Proscriptions of Sulla, except that Eligabalus is already at the helm.”
THIS. I have no idea what it means, but God help me, I will find out.
He’s not been that Leigh. Diisagreeable at times, yes. But all in all a good guy.
I can’t help with the Ancient History stuff and my son who is in the know is off taking the SATs.
LB? I missed the ass comment. Yeah…uncalled for.
He’s a dick, Blitz. He’s hated on me since I started posting here.
“Fresno is full of Mexicans which would turn the place blue in a heartbeat.”
Fresno has always been full of Mexicans. Try again.
Fresno has not always been full of Mexicans. My family has lived in the valley since the 30s.
“I have no idea what it means, but God help me, I will find out.”
Both Sulla and Elagabalus are well-worth learning about.
Hey LB? why? Leigh is a valued commenter here. You seem to disagree with me at times, but our back and forth is always cordial. We all respect each other here, even if we disagree.
And no, Fresno was at various times full of Chinese and whites too, so….
I will Spy, But babies are here, don’t have a lot of time between naps
I stand corrected. Apologies.
Leigh, I normally don’t comment at all. I’m enjoying this brief time, but will eventually go back to lurking.
Way to go LB. I knew you were a good guy!
“Hey LB? why? Leigh is a valued commenter here. You seem to disagree with me at times, but our back and forth is always cordial. We all respect each other here, even if we disagree. ”
Really? Where did I call her names?
leigh is a peach…until you challenge her.
God forbid anyone be challenged at PW!
Ummm…I’ve challenged her in this thread. Politely mind you, but disagreed? YES. I never said you called her names by the way. It was this comment that bothered me
“You really do talk out your ass sometimes.”
Not neccessary.
This is the last I’m going to say about it, Lee, but you have called me a liar more than once. The last was just a few days ago when you doubted the veracity of a statement I made that was a recollection of your telling me “That’s not the way we do things here.”
Well, you did say it. I remember because you and had been telling me that I was full of shit and that I was making things up (“pulling things out of my ass”) only that time it was regarding Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the Welfare State. Several others corrected you and I gave you his quote in my reply. It was very harsh and it hurt my feelings because I hadn’t been posting here very long. You also asked me what name I used to post under and acted skeptical that I have only ever used my real name.
I’ve tried to be nice to you. I have congratulated you on various milestones in your life with your new wife. I’ve tried to be neutral. I don’t know what else to do other than tell you that you are not the “nice guy” you think you are. As for standing corrected, go forth and make SURE the person you are telling is full of shit truly is before you step on your crank. Again.
I’m willing to forgive and forget unless you start up again.
ANNNNNNNDDDD….You did it again. You put letters into my fingers that were never there. Went back and read the comments. NEVER did I even come close to implying that you called her a name.
LB? I like you. I respect your opinions. But please, don’t imply things that I didn’t even come close to typing.
“And while you may be able to take a mosquitos ass out at 100 yards, they can take out your house with a drone from a computer console a thousand miles away. ”
Go ahead. Do that. Of course, doing that in the middle of the burbs might be just a tad problematic in terms of collateral damage. Especially when they target the wrong house. That’s the kind of event that persuades large numbers of people that the government has lost any claim on their loyalty. And they don’t, frankly, have the missiles to do that to enough of us. Especially when the locations of the factories start having real problems keeping the lights on or getting shipments in and out….
Leigh? There’s only so much you can do. There is a persona here that I will not respond to BECAUSE I disrespect him and his opinions. I think that’s the best way to go, could be wrong.
LB is coming close to that wall, even though I really like his posts.
SDN? All I can say is YUP. My previous posts have tried to point that out, but I’m fairly inept.
Fresno has not always been full of Mexicans. My family has lived in the valley since the 30s.
The Mexicans all over Fresno were migrant workers. Non-voters and non-moochers.
And they don’t, frankly, have the missiles to do that to enough of us.
They don’t have to hit all of us. They just have to set an example.
I like everyone here. Some more than others. I’ve knocked heads with everyone, even Jeff, more than once, but we’ve ironed out our differences and I like to think we are friends now. Jeff knows I respect him and I his family and his hard work here. I’m just a hard-headed white girl with too many Germans in the family, I guess.
I agree that there’s only so much you can do and why he hates me is a mystery. It doesn’t keep me up nights or anything, but it makes me wonder.
And I’d join y’all’s argument about who’s the bitchiest, because that would be ME, but it’s the wrong day for me to care. IYKWIMAITYD.
Blitz, leigh called me a dick. Since you seem to think she’s all that and a cup of tea, I’ll leave you to enjoy building the echo chamber of miss manners meets fearless warrior you seem to crave with your own bad selves.
Out.
Fresno is a very difficult place to get to because it is in an obscure and seldom-traveled part of the world
Hi Di!!
” They don’t have to hit all of us. They just have to set an example”
THIS. That example will set off regular folks like me all over this Country. I hope it never happens, but if it does? WAR.
LB? I missed that, or I would have called that out too. LEIGH, Don’t do that, KK?
The Mexicans all over Fresno were migrant workers. Non-voters and non-moochers.
That’s right, di. And later when they settled in, they sent their children to school with everyone else, learned English and became middle class merchants and tradesmen. They became citizens, too. My father’s foreman in his building business was a Mexican who became and American citizen. We had a big party for him. He was so proud! Those were the days.
My GOD I’ve knocked heads here Leigh, but that’s because I was talking before thinking. I’ve been at it with Jeff twice, on MY stupidity. I stopped commenting for a long time, and will stop again over this LB thingy.
Blitz, leigh called me a dick.
I called you a dick, Lee after you said I talked out of my ass.
Di, we can take turns being the bitchiest, otay?
i hate it when y’all fight
Leigh, I said that with a wink. He IS a dick to you, and I wish I understood exactly why. To me? he and I may disagree, but we’re cool. Beyond that, I can go no further except to say that Chivalry is NOT dead.
Me too Happy, me too.
I knew what you meant, Blitz. ; )
No more fighting, okay? Group hug, everyone?
“Since you seem to think she’s all that and a cup of tea, I’ll leave you to enjoy building the echo chamber of miss manners meets fearless warrior ”
LB? since this has all earlier been explained to you and easily searchable on this thread, all I can say is this…
Have another, we’ll talk in the morning, ok?
Group hug? eff that noise. I don’t like being touched by anyone, never mind the hive mind people here…ewwww!!!
Sorry, LB’s last one is bugging me
“miss manners meets fearless warrior ”
THIS
Go upthread. I clearly stated I was terrified if it came to pass. That’s the 3rd time he’s put HIS words in my mouth. Eff it. Strike 3.
Only if they get it right, di. And without setting the counterexamples of “you don’t have to be actually guilty so what have you got to lose?” or “you know, minions aren’t nearly as well protected as bosses.”
I hate group hugs, too. I was just kidding.
Leigh on Moynihan.
Di, we can take turns being the bitchiest, otay?
Long as we don’t synchronize. I hate that.
Oh fer… yucks sake? Kidding ladies, but been there seen that, don’t want the T shirt.
We live several states apart. The time change alone should solve any of that synchro business.
Geoff, you really are a wonder with the searching. Where were you when I needed a research assistant?
My memory isn’t what it once was so I like to find the source documents to look at.
Leigh, I’m at least 20-25 years older than you so when you needed one I was likely married, raising a son, and not yet or just barely online.
Oh, I know geoff. I’m just amazed at all the things you can find in little to no time.
I was just teasing about the research assistant thing.
Caroline Glick: *** Standing before world and regional leaders on May 26, Kerry said plaintively, “This will help build the future. Is this a fantasy? I don’t think so.” ***
John Kerry knows the future. Only look. He says so.
Does he turn to the past for guidance? Of course not. How would that be progress?
Besides, it isn’t his own 4 billion dollars he’s about to piss away, so what should he care? It isn’t his children the Palestinians will kill with the proceeds they steal from his 4 billion dollar ‘investment’ fund. More probably it will be their own, in which case, they’ll have brought such destruction on themselves (we won’t say again! that would be too far tied to the past! We need progress above all, and progress must be tied to the future. Which John Kerry knows.) So, let someone else’s children die, John. You needn’t worry yourself about it.
John Kerry “Back From the Future.”
I hope everyone will read the thread geoffb kindly found and compare and contrast leighs characterization of me at 2:58 pm and what actually happened.
Also the way she spoke to Jeff at the start of the thread Geoffb kindly linked.
Also, there’s a world of difference in “you’re acting like X”, and “you are X” (where X=fool or dick or whatever). You’d think a trained psychologist would know that.
As you were, I’m back out again.
OK, I’m torn. On one hand I don’t want to be on a forum (especially these days!), where I use my real name and other regulars that remain anonymous are free to lie about what I’ve said and trash my character. On the other hand, I kinda think I better defend myself.
“leigh”, we all talk out our ass from time to time, but you lied and claimed I said things I didn’t. The link Geoffb posted proves it. Also, both today and in the link geoffb linked, I got caught talking out my ass, and admitted it immediately after , and immediately apologized to you for todays incident. You called me a dick and said I wasn’t a good man. I will never again trust anything you say.
“Blitz”:
Chivalry is more than defending damsels in distress.
Anyway, I gotta do some thinking about continuing posting along with anonymous people with questionable scruples.
[…] protein wisdom discusses presidential “ethics” […]
“There is a reason that even the thought of the libertarian Koch Brothers buying the Tribune’s newspapers has caused so much sturm und drang, ”
Darleen.
I was thinking that their was concern about the Kock brothers releasing the Obama palestinean chearleading video that the L.A. Times supposedly has sequestered away.
kelly ayotte kelly ayotte she spreads her legs for schumer cock vice president she wants to be but can we trust a slut like she
I’m thinking we cannot
The Hill: *** Cummings said that interviews with IRS employees had proved that no one at the White House had a role in pushing for the higher scrutiny on Tea Party groups, citing the testimony of an IRS employee who described himself as a “conservative Republican.” ***
My my, Mr. Cummings sure looks like a man in a hurry. Evidently he doesn’t think that makes him smell like week-old crabshells laying about roasting in the sun, whereas ordinary noses may pick up a hint of his fragrance from a couple of miles away.
propaganda slut candy crowley was licking his shit up like it was clotted cream
The Hill, again: *** Werfel eagerly told Congress in his two appearances this week how unacceptable he found both the agency’s improper targeting of Tea Party groups and its past spending on conferences, and has vowed to restore the public’s trust in the tax collector.
“I understand the enormity of the moment and the enormity of the challenge,” Werfel told the House Oversight Committee on Thursday. “I want to get to work and roll up my sleeves.” ***
Y’know, fuck that noise. Better the goddamn IRS apparatus be abolished altogether, and replaced by a simple tax structure which not only will everyone understand, but to which everyone will contribute.
But”O hells No!” say the Republican lackeys, “Let’s preserve what we’ve got! It could be very useful tomorrow!”
Not getting into it anymore with you LB. You’ve put words into my mouth too often in this thread. Please do NOT reconsider posting here, as you’re valuable, but I certainly will not be interacting with you.
Mr anonymous, where did I put words in your mouth even once?
First, I’m Ed Davis. So no longer anonymous. Other than that? Go look up thread and see what I actually posted. Then compare it to what you posted.
Leigh is right. You’re a dick.
You made the claim Ed, you give the cite.
And If you show where that’s what I did, I will apologize, not call you names.
VDH the (neo-)conservative political commentator is a post-retirement from active teaching career move.
The guy who wrote The Greek Way of War fully deserved (and would still deserve today) tenure. I doubt very much that the guy who wrote Mexifornia would get tenure today if that had preceded The Greek Way of War, instead of vice versa.
And for SBP’s benefit, Classics is a branch of the Humanities, and the Humanities burn* with flaming progressives cum leftists of every stripe and pedigree. You’re literally more likely to find an avowed marxist, for example, in a humanities related department than in a social sciences department.
*Well, not so much any more since pretty much all that’s left is cinders and ashes.
As bh likes to remind us from time to time, we’re confronted with the limitations of the blog/comment format. The forum is informal, but the medium (i.e. the written word) is formal. So if one doesn’t wish to be reduced to insipid emoticons, one is more or less required to adopt a quick to anger, quick to forgive ethos.
Of course, after bh does remind us, we gag him with his hall monitor sash and stuff him back in his locker, where he belongs.
The geeky little, pimple-faced, goggle-glassed busy-body.
Oh shut the fuck up Schreiber! ;-)/ 0_O/ :-P/ :-D
waterpistols at dawn sir!
Don’t make me pull this thread over….
I’M ALREADY IN MY ROOM!
I always miss all the good echo chamberiness.
Me too.
The principal says if I keep my sobbing and cries for help to a minimum he might look into getting me a double-wide locker. I’m thinking about getting cable installed and maybe a mini-fridge.
If the principal gives you all that goodness, you’ll never have a reason to leave the locker, bh.
bh, hold out for a triple. You’ll be able to install a small barcolounger.
Pssst… bh.
I stashed this under the stack of WSJ at the bottom of the locker. Extra battery pack and blades too.
When I was a teen, you didn’t need to stash batteries too in order to look at skin mags hidden at the bottom of your locker.
Damn Ernst, in my teens? put something lke that iin your locker and get busted. I missed the good old days by * * much.
“waterpistols at dawn sir!”
Damn, you REALLY hate emoticons, huh?
I’m REALLTY sorry.
(and kinda scared of waterpistols…)
And if you ask where that extra “T” came from, I’m pleading the 5TH
Oh, and leigh, Mr. Davis came clean with his real identity when it came to calling me a “dick”. Care to step up, or are you going to continue appealing to your feminine privilege?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Chivalry isn’t dead, it’s irrelevant.
OT: The pravda on the Zawarhiri shooting in California is now “domestic violence”. Right. Like the Ft. Hood massacre was “workplace violence”.
No link, because I don’t want to insult your intelligence the way that CBS just insulted mine.
Dry your eyes, Lee. Your making a scene.
“Dry your eyes, Lee.”
OK.
“Your making a scene”
You are is you’re, with an apostrophe “re”.
You’d think a trained, degreed psychologist would know that.
Course, an anonymous person can pretty much say what they want I guess, truth be damned.
I cannot help but wonder what sort of satisfaction you expect to get from this approach, Lee. Let’s say she told you her name. What difference would it make? She is already an established “brand” here named “leigh.” That is just as real as someone presenting their name would be, as far as people on the internet go.
There is a difference between changing your handle all the time, as a truly anonymous person would do, and keeping just one handle, and owning it. The only things that knowing her name would help you with are taking legal action or confronting her directly. I doubt either of those would be profitable.
“You are is you’re, with an apostrophe “re”.”
because proofreading blog posts is really really important
OK, now that we’ve heard from the other anonymous people, any of you people with skin in the game wanna weigh in?
I have more respect for Ed Davis than any anonymous commenter on the internet at this point.
Proofreading ain’t that important “newrouter”, what we need now is courage in the face of the NSA and proggy liars. Your opinion as an anonymous internet program furiously linking real people’s thoughts ain’t all that. I have Drudge and Instapundit bookmarked already.
Use your real name you people in the shadows, you’ll learn circumspection.
Lee, all you are getting is my first name. I’ve already had one stalker try to kill me, so first name only is the way I roll.
Thanks for correcting my spelling.
Take a Midol, LB.
s/Kevin McGehee
Newnan, GA
“Use your real name you people in the shadows”
why the nsa can already find that out?
I’ll take a powder Kevin.
Good luck with the revolution.
I’ve learned what I needed to know to make my decision. The anonymous liar will be defended over…whatever it is you think of me. Chivalry!!
I’ll just tend my own garden and shoot all trespassers from here on out.
Survivors will be shot again.
it’s not too late to plant cucumbers
I’m still pondering how a regular Alan Turing would handle the question, but given my general ignorance of Alan Turing, can only fall back on something like “Break the codes!” or, “Sure Oscar, only give me a minute to ring up my mother to let her know where we’re going and it’s off to the pub with us.” Neither of which would seem to be of any service, really.
my cukes just sprouted by the way
i put ’em in a container. i need some fence for the viney stuff
i like them with a little mayo and salt n pepper on a whole wheat bagel
and the tomatoes and basil plants are boffo
my last good crop of cukes was in salem va
Venezuela hit by fears of hyperinflation and recession?
takin’ failshit world wide that mr. heinz
poor hj heinz now controlled by warren “my secretary gives me political points” buffet
his secretary is a lying whore
Got it sdferr, I’m gone.
Always affirming to get a boot in the ass on the way out though.
Oh heck Lee, I thought it was funny. Ah well, de gustitbus non disputandem est.
(- t) [for the mathematically inclined]
what just happened
nobody tells me anything
we need a gustibus for the rest of us
Happy, popularity is more important than honor in America now.
Is all you need to know.
i feel you Mr. lee
but you just have to soldier on
it’s like in the movies where that one guy is afflicted by a cynical apprehension that in America popularity is more important than honor but he just pluckily endures and at some point he triumphs over adversity
I vote don’t be on the way out. Instead, be on the way in.
You gave the answer I expected, Lee. That’s unfortunate.
Also, point to where I defended leigh. I did not. I asked what satisfaction you would get from her telling you her name.
People in my business have been persecuted and fired for expounding conservative thoughts. I won’t lose my work to satisfy you. I honor the handle I chose and treat it like I do my name. I don’t say anything as cranky-d that I wouldn’t say as me.
The “I’m taking my ball and going home” bit gets really old.
This is unintentionally hilarious.
don’t be so surly cranky it ill becomes you
I don’t take advice on human relations from people who come off as hateful as you do sometimes, yellow peril.
“unintentionally hilarious”
Tell me about it “cranky”
Imagine (it’s easy if you try) if you did use your real name, knowing there is the risk of actual prosecution, and anonymous people lie about things you’ve said and characterized you as someone you’re not (see my comment at June 9, 2013 at 1:09 am).
Think you might be a little more interested in defending your real name than “cranky”, as honorably as you have been using “cranky” accepted?
“The “I’m taking my ball and going home” bit gets really old. ”
This is the last thread you’ll see it, so skip on by and don’t worry about it.
i’m not hateful I’m just passionate
like in the movies where you have that one guy who people have this wrong impression to where they think he’s hateful but later you come to understand that actually he’s just passionate and he’s super nice to where he has to be played by someone like jared padalecki or joseph gordon-levitt
Well, that wasn’t much fun. Sorry to see you go, lee.
On another topic entirely, is anyone else getting little annoying pop-ups at the bottom of the screen? First it was Wine by Women, now it’s more adult-themed. Guess the NSA has kept track of my preferences.
I’m not getting any pop-ups, Red. Turn on your tracking protection since you don’t need to enable it to view or reply to posts here.
Do you have a pop-up blocker? I have one installed (can’t remember the name) but it doesn’t defeat the pop-unders that PJM and others try to sneak on to their sites.
i got the pop up thingies on my phone this weekend but not on pc
RI Red says June 10, 2013 at 10:30 am
Sounds like you’ve got something. I’d recommend scanning with MSRT, Malwarebytes, and Clamwin (all are free).
Never mind what I just said.
I don’t ‘mobile’, and my phone is not smart.