Monday, March 5, 2012

You Don't Have a Right to Other People's Stuff



It was a red banner week for the flaming red left. First, a principle object of liberal rage and hatred died, and then Saturday brought a rare Rush Limbaugh apology. Let's bring the focus back where it belongs: Personal Rights

Progressives have trashed the concept of natural rights, ironically exchanging it for a modern-day Divine Right of Kings

Our nation was founded upon negative rights; essentially, the right to be left alone to do what you wish with your life, liberty and property as you pursue your own personal happiness. The left now crashes in demanding positive rights; the right to shake down others for  free stuff. This is a direct violation of our natural negative rights, eventuating the noisy culture clash.  

They've used the state to confiscate our inherent rights to life, liberty and property, and they put to a vote which "rights" will be granted back to us. We get whatever our Emperor and his Supreme Council bestows upon us.

The various liberal outrage syndicates ensure they get their fair share, while denying political enemies the same.  At the first sign of a threat to the confiscation schemes, they send in an aggrieved tribe screaming choleric indignation to scare off the predatory politicians.  In this brave new world of collectivized rights that are doled back out, whoever screams the loudest wins.

This is upside-down, as Mark Steyn explains:
When it comes to human rights, I go back to 1215 and Magna Carta [...] Back then, “human rights” were rights of humans, of individuals — and restraints upon the king: They’re the rights that matter: limitations upon kingly power.
Eight centuries later, we have entirely inverted the principle: “Rights” are now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects — the right to “free” health care, to affordable housing... 
Obama’s bureaucratic edict is upgraded into the “right to contraception coverage at no additional cost.” And, up against a “human right” as basic as that, how can such peripheral rights as freedom of conscience possibly compete? (Mark Steyn)
Nobody is proposing to deny women access to contraception. You wouldn't know it by the hysterical left, screaming like they had Torquemada's hot poker up their rear ends.

Here's some needed clarity on this inflamed issue:
But the right to choose contraception does not entail a right to have it paid for by someone else, any more than the right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment entails the right to a free Smith & Wesson. (Culture Warriors)
The Left Wing:  DC's Newest Reality Show!

The apotheosis of the left's shameless claim on the property of others comes in the form of a 30-year old woman, on national tv, brazenly demanding others pay for her to get her freak on.  "Her parents should be proud," intoned the president.  Uh huh...  Progressives should be proud, the indoctrination is taking hold.

The left has taken Hollywood's West Wing to the next delusional level, with life imitating art as their latest iconic icon provided mock testimony in a phony Hollywood-like set, complete with liberal politicians and their handmaidens in the press starring as themselves!

As Sandra "Get Yo Freak On for Free" Fluke is finding out (Is it true Bill Clinton called Obama asking for her phone number?), when you drag your dirty undies out into the public square and force other people to bow down to your morality and you demand that they pay for you to knock off a piece, it is no longer private morality. It’s public, and your behavior becomes a legitimate debate topic.

Just look at how Obamacare made everyone's health a public topic, giving the first lady a state-sponsored podium to scold all those fat kids.

Battling Rights Claims
What we have in this debate is a clash not between two liberty interests, but rather between two rights-claims – one negative (genuine), the other positive (counterfeit). All that is required for the exercise of a negative right (to self-ownership and, redundantly, liberty and one’s legitimately acquired belongings) is other people’s noninterference.
[...] But the fulfillment of positive rights requires that other people act affirmatively even if they don’t want to — say, by providing products or paying the bills. If one person’s freedom depends on the infringement of someone else’s freedom, the first claim is illegitimate. To hold otherwise is to reject the principle of equality.  (Reason)
The progressive idea of positive rights is a thinly-disguised coercion by mob rule. This direct democracy, granting positive rights to whoever screams the loudest, flies in the face of American values. The American way is to respect the natural rights of all; not cheering when government goes jihad on the rights of your enemies and then gives you the spoils.

130 comments:

jez said...

the argument in favour of free contraceptives is that family planning is an especially important tool for poor families to control their finances. If access to contraceptives is in any way financially restricted, then it is a tool by which poverty is entrenched.

The relative importance of countering such entrenchment vs property rights is a decision for the individual church-goer -- I don't think any of the rights enumerated by the founders are absolute, not even that primary one about free speech.

twoguys2012 said...

But the right to choose contraception does not entail a right to have it paid for by someone else, any more than the right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment entails the right to a free Smith & Wesson. (Culture Warriors)
----------

Annnnnd, BOOM! There it is.

Chicks use contraception to not get pregnant. That's the meaning of contra-ception. Not getting pregnant.

A chick gets pregnant through sperm-meeting-egg. Or, for the simpler-minded, through sex.

So, contraception is used not by a chick NOT having sex, but by a chick who IS having sex.

If said chick says that her contraceptives need to be paid for by someone else, then....indeed, isn't that paying her to have sex? No, paying for her to have sex. Paying FOR her to have sex.

I think I'll go before Congress and demand free ammunition for my Constitutional right to a firearm(s) of choice. Possessing a firearm is in the Constitution, so this would make sense, yes? Not so much with the whole contraceptive thing, though.

By the way, if anyone listened to, or read the transcripts of, this chick's speech, and didn't come away from it realizing she is a whiner and made feminism AND the left look like helpless morons, there is no hope for you.

Anonymous said...

|
|
|
|
|
|

There exists a bold woman named Fluke
Whose ideas make sane men want to puke.
She petitioned a Judge
To help nurse her grudge.
If a Brit, he’d have flipped his peruke!


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

As a fast-becoming dissident on matters relating to government interference in matters relating to sexual expression -- and its often-dire consequences -- let me say that ANY policy that might help discourage or prevent MORONS and MALCONTENTS from procreating should in a sane society be even more welcome than "the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la."

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

"I don't think any of the rights enumerated by the founders are absolute, not even that primary one about free speech."

Well, of course, YOU wouldn't, which is why I and so many others have serious problems with you. Not only are you NOT an American, Jez, you are a LIBERAL to boot, which disqualifies you from passing judgment on sacred precepts to which you are adamantly opposed by your very nature.

Having suffered for nearly half a century from the devastating effects so-called "liberalism" has had on the United States of America, I have come to the realization that even native-born Americans who embrace Marxist thinking have effectively disqualified themselves from being considered proper American citizens.

I now think of them as "Resident Aliens" -- THE ENEMY WITHIN. Their "legal status" has nothing to do with it.

Liberalism IS a Mental Disorder.

~ FreeThinke

jez said...

FreeThinke: thank you, but neither of those properties would disqualify someone from passing judgement on your DoI or constitution, neither of which are sacred (idolatry), they just happen to be unusually well-written. Your attempt to silence me via intolerant bullying has been noted. :)

For clarification, I speak as one dedicated to most of the rights enumerated in your constitution, but I recognise certain exceptions as valid, eg. although free speech is in many ways THE primary right, it is still possible to commit treason, a crime of speech which calls for maximum punishment.

Ducky's here said...

The only people who are against it are fundies who want to control women.
Insurance companies like it, pregnancies are expensive, birth control is cheap. Don't have to twist their arms to get them to agree to this.
Drug companies like it, of course, more money for them.
Normal people like it. Means that they can easily get contraception, and that others can reducing the probability of unwanted children.

Everyone is happy except for a small group of people who think that their religion allows or requires that men should have control over women's reproductive rights.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: The ends do not justify the means.

If a government thinks its a good idea to contracept the poors' prospective progeny out of existence, then it should put it to a legislative vote, and if passed, hand it out.

You don't do it by violating the rights of others by forcing them to buy it for others.

I don't think I can make it any clearer that I did in the article. You have chosen one of the few valid lines of argumentation, which is denying the validity of the premise of natural right.

Great. Now you're back to the divine right of kings, tempered only by mob rule direct democracy. Not a pretty place to be.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Excellent dodge of the issue. Congratulations, your propaganda indoctrination is a complete success.

We have contraception and people are free to buy it. I don't know where the control of women fits into this?

Always On Watch said...

Progressives have trashed the concept of natural rights, ironically exchanging it for a modern-day Divine Right of Kings

Interesting that you mention that, Silverfiddle. I had the same thought as I was doing lesson preparation for A Tale of Two Cities.

Lately, I feel as if Western society is regressing -- never mind all the technological advances.

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Everyone is happy except for a small group of people who think that their religion allows or requires that men should have control over women's reproductive rights.

Wrong.

Speaking on a non-religious level and being crass, I don't want to pay for somebody else's screwing party.

Silverfiddle said...

Obamacare has created a huge mess, which is what always happens when we abandon time-tested bedrock principles.

The solution is to do the opposite of Obamacare and create a real free market of health care and insurance, where people shop independent of their employer.

A woman can buy whatever services she wants without the government, church or employer spying on her. That's real freedom.

Always On Watch said...

FT,
ANY policy that might help discourage or prevent MORONS and MALCONTENTS from procreating should in a sane society be even more welcome than "the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la."

Zing!

I read today that some on the Left are saying that free contraception will curb global warming -- via population control, of course.

Ducky's here said...

Yes Siiver but that isn't because the Council of Bishops hasn't tried to limit access.

They are available despite the efforts of some on the fringe right.

Now, let's say a woman is raped and the nearest hospital for treatment and a rape kit (remember wen Breitbart's heroine, Palin, wanted women to pay for theirs) happens to be a Catholic affiliated hospital.
They screamed like mad in Massachusetts when it was ruled they would have to make the "morning after" pill available. Felt the woman should suffer for the coincidence that the available hospital is a catholic affiliate.

So don't say there isn't an element working at the edges to deny availability.

Also do the freaking math and tell me that mandatory coverage would cost you anything.

You were fine with making me pay for your freaking cab ride home with a useless mercenary ad that cost real money. The coverage benefits likely prove a net savings.

Ducky's here said...

... by the way how do you manage to equate mandating coverage with forcing use of birth control as that supreme ass rack Mark Steyn implies.

Who are you going to quote next, Jerome Corsi? I hear he's has proof that Sheriff Apaio's investigation into the birth certificate is accurate. You need someone to replace Breitbart, Corsi's your guy.

Ducky's here said...

"(Is it true Bill Clinton called Obama asking for her phone number?)"

-----

Clever, I know that the fringe right has the sense of humor of a hammer but that is petty lame.

Why not just call her a slut like your bath house buddy Limbaugh?

Anonymous said...

Aw, Jez. I wouldn't attempt to "silence" you. I'm just a lovable ol' pussy cat, as surely you must know.

I don't really dislike you. I just vehemently disagree with almost everything you say most of the time. but there have been numerous times when you and I have been quite simpatico. Why have you never deigned to notice that, I wonder?

I don't think it's proper to regard passionate statements opposing policies we happen to favor as "bullying." Wouldn't it be better to call it "debate" and let it go at that.

Funny! I DO agree with you that treasonous commentary and treasonous activity should be censored out of existence. I believe insurrection would best be nipped in the bud, as it were. Prominent, well-informed and highly intelligent contributors to this forum have excoriated me for holding that belief. They regard it as "un-American," "unconstitutional," "asinine" and simply dead wrong. I regard it as Common Sense, because i am dead set against allowing the promotion of self-destructive, suicidal policies to gain ascendancy, just because a majority of the electorate has allowed itself to be seduced into supporting them.

YUP! I'm an elitist in the sense that our Founders were elitists. That is why they eschewed "democracy" and designed a Representative Republic with many layers separating crucial decision-making powers from responding directly to "the whim of the vulgar populace."

The closer we get to "direct democracy," the closer we get to dissolution and disintegration -- the descent into Chaos and Anarchy.

~ FreeThinke

Bunkerville said...

Thus, men now have a "right" to free condoms via a Obamacare mandate. We cannot be sexist now, can we? Prescriptions for all men.

jez said...

"denying the validity of the premise of natural right... [puts you] back to the divine right of kings, tempered only by mob rule direct democracy. Not a pretty place to be."

I don't deny natural rights, I say they are not absolute. Would you repeal the law against treason?

My real disagreement with US style conservatives is that I think government is occasionally a useful tool. Your belief (or at least your presentation) that the free market always arrives at a better solution than a government would, that the profit motive is intrinsically superior to the vote motive, puts that useful tool forever out of reach, and in your idealistic insistence on ever-decreasing government certain classes of problem would not ever be addressed.
That said, I can readily see that the broader the citizenry, the narrower the applicability of its government. Thanks to scale, your federal government is not comparable to my parliament.

Silverfiddle said...

You're particularly blustery today, Ducky. Trying to argue against the logic of natural rights has you flustered.

Read the title again: You don't have a right to somebody else's stuff. Period.

A person or group had a right to do what they with with their property so long as they don't violate the rights of others. Period

@"You were fine with making me pay for your freaking cab ride home with a useless mercenary ad that cost real money."

Why in the hell do you keep bringing this up? I was on a government approved mission (voted on by congress) and a member of the US Military, which unlike the panoply of progressive programs, actually has a constitutional mandate.

Are you mad that I came home alive?

Ducky's here said...

No, I'm not angry that you came back and I wish a blessing on you and your family.

Are you angry that you can't stop women from having unwanted pregnancies?

My splint is off, I'm in a good mood today.

Fredd said...

The left has simply redefined what a 'right' is: something that a majority vote can coerce from one group of citizens and bestow upon another favored group.

In the good ol' days, rights didn't cost anyone a dime.

Anonymous said...

Jez asks, SilverFiddle:

"Would you repeal the law against treason?"

I'll gladly answer that.

NO! Instead, I would BROADEN it to include the prohibition of incendiary, anti-Constitutional, anti-Christian, pro-Atheist, pro-Muslim, pro-Marxist, pro-Fascist, pro-Collectivist, pro-Tyrannist, rhetoric in the public square and the censorship of seductive anti-American propaganda disseminated in the guise of "Entertainment."

Sorry to have to offend you again, Finntann, but Joe McCarthy had it RIGHT. Unfortunately, he was a ham-fisted klutz. Like today's clownish, hysterical alarmist, Glenn Beck, Joe McCarthy was the WRONG MAN delivering a RIGHT message.

If we can broaden the definition of "RIGHTS" to include the "right" to possess anything and everything the government thinks we ought to have regardless of our ability to pay for it, surely we can also broaden the definition of "TREASON" to include the prohibition of anything and everything contrary to the establishment and maintenance of Good Order, nicht wahr?

"A GOVERNMENT POWERFUL ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YO WANT IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO TAKE AWAY EVERYTHING YOU HAVE."

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

Divine Right of Kings? Torquemada?

These are Catholic innovations and innovators, correct? ;)

Infidel de Manahatta said...

Excellent post.

Poor girl, no access to contraceptives.

If only we have a benevolent King who could help us.

Help us Obi wan Obama!

Lisa said...

Wasn't this supposed to be part of Obama's Health Care Plan? Just take a pill? Oh wait that was for the old people we are supposed to just toss away.

Ducky's here said...

Just as an aside, Fiddler. AOW had a useful suggestion in the previous thread. Why not try a thread with peole discussing their favorite poem, novel, piece of music, film ... try to find common ground rather than the contention of the political.

Our hope lies in finding common ground and the ability to move forward. Frankly the last decade has seemed to render that impossible but why not try a small step?

I even notice that when I discuss food or film with z we become quite civil.

Anonymous said...

It sickens and disgusts me that Rush Limbaugh allowed himself to be pressured into APOLOGIZING to this leftist STRUMPET and her absurd assertions.

What he said about her was accurate. Women who engage in sexual relations outside the confines of marriage are, indeed, SLUTS. Rush used the polite term "prostitute" in reference to La Fluke. That is factually inaccurate. A prostitute engages in sexual relations in exchange for an agreed upon sum of money. Rush SHOULD have called her a WHORE, the good, old-fashioned term for a woman of easy virtue.

Of course thanks to the influence of liberal professors and Pop Culture MOST women today qualify as sluts and whores.

Let's face it for good or for ill EVERYBODY'S DOING IT.

"Virtue" is a quaint concept that has been all but eliminated from Public Consciousness.

That may or may not be all right, but I don't think WE should be paying for everyone ELSE'S mistakes and poor judgment.

Ms. Fluke's identity as a SLUT, a WHORE, a STRUMPET, a TARTE and a LAYABOUT cannot be questioned. It is the bold assertiveness Ms Fluke displays in asserting her "right" not only to BE a SLUT, but to have YOU and I accommodate her lifestyle choice by forcing us by paying for it.

Apparently she is not sufficiently prepossessing to enable her to charge for rendering the services that, apparently, give her so much pleasure.

Ms. FLUKE!

Dear, God! If only she were a FLUKE, instead of an Emblem of the Preposterous Degeneracy that has so sadly become "The New Normal!" in our time.

~ FreeThinke

PS: I've known many likable, and endearing sluts, and I thank God for them. but they never expected to profit from their promiscuous behavior by cashing in a the Public Till. - FT

twoguys2012 said...

SF,

"You don't do it by violating the rights of others by forcing them to buy it for others."
(Um...did the Democrats get that memo?)
----

AOW,

"Speaking on a non-religious level and being crass, I don't want to pay for somebody else's screwing party."
(But think of the money we can raise for Obama's campaign!)
----

Ducky,

"Why not just call her a slut like your bath house buddy Limbaugh?"
(Okay: SLUT! There.)
----

FT,

"YUP! I'm an elitist in the sense that our Founders were elitists. That is why they eschewed "democracy" and designed a Representative Republic with many layers separating crucial decision-making powers from responding directly to "the whim of the vulgar populace."
(FT, oh my, we agree! 'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.' Ben Franklin)
----

Bunkerville,

"Thus, men now have a "right" to free condoms via an Obamacare mandate. We cannot be sexist now, can we? Prescriptions for all men."
(Yes! I want mine to be chocolate-flavored for those special moments.)
----

Ducky,

"Are you angry that you can't stop women from having unwanted pregnancies?"
('Unwanted pregnancies'? Consider the oxymoronic elements of that wording. It should be 'unplanned pregnancies'. Only leftists can say they don't want babies and these babies are bad.)

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: I would love to do that. I really enjoy grilling and smoking, and I've been told I'm pretty good at it.

I could probably do a blog on nothing but guns, fishing, hunting, grilling and beer.

Unfortunately, our culture has dedicated itself to a continuous and noisy rape of reason, and that is what I wish to combat.

Jim at Conservatives on Fire said...

The addiction to kool-aid will not end until, like Greece, there is no money left to pay for it.

twoguys2012 said...

SF,

"I could probably do a blog on nothing but guns, fishing, hunting, grilling and beer."

Well, you just alienated 100% of the leftists who haunt your blog. Those topics mean nothing to them. I mean, come on...they're leftists.

Now, if you wanted to do a blog on opera, animal rights, abortion rights, feminism, white guilt, art, coloring, separation of church and state, diversity, community activism, reparations for slavery, federal bailouts, free healthcare, Socialism benefits, Constitutional hatred, or Obama, you would have them commenting in droves.

I have a food blog, myself. http://www.fortheloveofthemeal.net I would welcome your input.

Just sayin'.

Ducky's here said...

A blog on coloring?

Maybe you can explain a trend I've seen in my photography, two guys.
I have been drawn lately to very strong full frame verticals, in saturated primary color if possible.

I'm violating some rules here and splitting the frame. Cohesion is being lost. I wonder if it has anything to do with the strong dissension I feel at conservative blogs.

I took one of the edges of two proximate natural gas tanks with a strong vertical background stripe between them and sold it. Nice shot.

Barnett Newman or American politics?

Art is fascinating when you drop the sarcasm.

Ducky's here said...

@Silver - Unfortunately, our culture has dedicated itself to a continuous and noisy rape of reason

-----
Indeed, we shouldn't be tearing the fabric of reason. Bad move.

However, we should also acknowledge the limits of reason and accept that all was not solved by the Enlightenment.

"We hold these truths to be self evident ..."

They fudged it my friend.

beamish said...

Ducky,

I think TwoGuys on leftists and coloring meant "what wine should be served with a turquoise crayon?"

Ducky's here said...

You would, you think a standard riff on a basic blues chord progression is composition.

Z said...

My post does just that, Ducky....oddly enough. I'm sick of fighting and thought the music video someone emailed me would be fun to discuss per my last sentence on the post. Interesting question, I hope.

Having said that, I think the analogy of the contraception issue and everyone having guns/ammo free is an excellent one.

jez said...

Free thinke:
"Why have you never deigned to notice that, I wonder?"

I notice it. What would you have me say about it?

"I wouldn't attempt to "silence" you ... treasonous commentary and treasonous activity should be censored out of existence."

you mean to include my remarks, I take it? I'm happy to defend anything I've said against the charge of treason, properly defined. The way you define it, politics and philosophy are illegal. You are in agreement, I think, with Vladimir Putin.

"don't think it's proper to regard passionate statements opposing policies we happen to favor as "bullying.""

Stop it then.

beamish said...

You would, you think a standard riff on a basic blues chord progression is composition.

No, I think you're an imbecile.

twoguys2012 said...

Ducky,

Are you familiar with Frank Miller's 300? It is a brilliant graphic novel that was made into a movie.

Anyhoos, in it there is a scene where the warriors from Sparta come across some artists, potters, and the like, from local villages who wish to join the Spartans as the Spartans marched forth to fight King Xerxes, who posed a huge threat to the entire region.

The conclusion of the meeting was that the Spartan King told the gathered tradesmen and artists to stay home. Wars are for fighting men, not poets, artists, and dreamers.

Guess which one you are?

In a leftist Utopia, people like you would flourish, embedded so deeply in touchy-feely feminine-spirited emotionalism and artistry. But in the really real world, it is men like me who make the difference.

And lest you seek to malign me as being a simpleton, brutish, uncultured ogre with no creativity or artistic ability, I should tell you I do compose poetry, I do calligraphy, I draw, I play guitar, I sing, and I can easily sit with my daughters while they have me partake in one of their famous tea parties.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: "We hold these truths to be self evident ..."

They fudged it my friend.


It's philosophy, Ducky; not physical science or mathematics.

That is their premise, and it is drawn from real-life observations, as well as from thought that preceded them.

As I've already said, the alternative is divine right of whoever is ruling us...

KP said...

Ducky, do you have a link to any of your photography? If not, would you consider putting one together?

Have a look at my pal, Mike Lardizabal's website. I am particularly partial to his black and whites. The one of Ogunquit, Maine reminds me of my childhood.

Then check out the group of inspirational black and whites shared by Tripwire Magazine this January. Mike is among them alongside Anset Adams, John Brady and others. Great stuff!

http://www.tripwiremagazine.com/2012/01/black-and-white-landscape-photography.html

KP said...

Michael Lardizabal:

http://michaellardizabal.blogspot.com/

I hope you don't mind SF!

KP said...

<< Nobody is proposing to deny women access to contraception. You wouldn't know it by the hysterical left, screaming like they had Torquemada's hot poker up their rear ends.>>

<< But the right to choose contraception does not entail a right to have it paid for by someone else >>

Exactly. Thank you for making this so clear. The left has purposefully obfuscated the issue for weeks now.

Ducky's here said...

KP, I don't have a Flickr page but since I switched to Adobe Lightroom I've thought about it. It was a hassle under Apple's Aperture.

Any Aperture users here, Lightroom 3 is $80 on Amazon, real good deal.

Ducky's here said...

Kr, I looked at your friends page from the second link. Nice range.

Why is it that any photographer you've ever met loves barns? Just an interesting thought.

He also has a couple with some big sweeping curves that have a nice lyricism.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, if you do business in the public square, then how you do that business becomes a public concern.

Do you understand that?

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

twoguys2012 -- you are pathological. You fashion yourself a real hard guy right out of Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces". Silly.

Oh by the way, "300" was dog shit.

Why don't you try something that may temper your blood lust? I'd try the deconstruction of bushido in 60's Japanese cinema. Kobayashi's "Harakiri" or Kurasowa's "Seven Samurai". Both brilliantly examine the warrior class and the need for it to be firmly tethered to the social good.

Also, Kurosawa did the greatest action scene in filmdom, in the rain and mud, one take. He didn't have a CGI bank like one of your little bed wetters that has you saying "awesome" leaving the megaplex.

Remember, the left is hear to help you live the life of the mind.

twoguys2012 said...

"Remember, the left is hear to help you live the life of the mind."

And the right is here to help you spell correctly.

Little bed-wetter? LOL! Oh, Ducky...if only you knew whom you spoke with.

*yawn*

Anonymous said...

This needs CORRECTION -- especially in light of Jez's reprimand in answer to the post containing it.

I foolishly wrote:

I don't think it's proper to regard passionate statements opposing policies we happen to favor as "bullying." Wouldn't it be better to call it "debate" and let it go at that.

What I MEANT, of course was:

I don't think it's proper to regard passionate statements opposing policies we happen NOT to favor as "bullying." Wouldn't it be better to call it "debate" and let it go at that?

A small point, perhaps, but a vital one, if one is to understand the intended meaning. In case you haven't gotten it yet, what I wrote was the exact opposite of what I meant. Chalk it up to carelessness.

"For want of a nail a shoe was lost ..."

We're often told not to sweat the small stuff, but if truth be told, there IS no "small stuff." EVERYTHING has a degree of importance.

Sorry, Jez. I didn't mean to mislead you.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Jez,

Since you are not an American, it would be impossible for you to commit "treason" against the USA. Ergo the point is moot.

I happen to believe, however, that seditious sentiments deliberately, often cunningly designed to attack, undermine, subvert and destroy the existing order are, indeed, treasonous.

There is a huge difference between honest differences of opinion, which should always be welcomed, and vicious, sly, perverse, mischief making bent on derailing the proper work of a decent society.

It's a bit like pornography, I suppose -- hard to define from a legal standpoint, but very easy to recognize once confronted with it.

A small anecdote to illustrate the point:

Years ago I gave private piano lessons. One of my "students" -- a young minx merely 10 years of age -- did not want to practice, did not want to be taught anything, and so was much given to endless diversionary tactics. She loved to pretend to be curious and to have a compelling need to know just about anything she could think of, as long as it was not related to the work we were supposed to be doing together.

She was a cute little girl, and in truth I had some sympathy for her, because she had no talent, and was only taking lessons because her mother wanted her to. But, I felt I couldn't just take her parents' money without attempting to earn it -- fancy that in this day and age.

Well, one day, she came flouncing up to me in her organdy dress, hair held back by pink plastic barrettes, with her hands held together behind her back, looked up at me demurely, but with a sly twinkle in her eye, and asked in a most earnest, plaintive little voice, "Mr. FreeThinke, would you tell me something, please?"

I said, "I'll try Teetee, but I'd much rather hear what you've done with The Happy Farmer, but go ahead and ask.

"Mr. FreeThinke, I've just got to know, because all the other kids are talking about it, and I feel so left out. What does FUCK mean?"

Well, I knew darned well she knew what it meant, and was just trying to get me flustered. Inwardly I laughed, but kept my composure, and said, "That's much too important a question for me to answer, Teetee. I'm only your piano teacher. You need to learn that from your parents, so when your mother comes to pick you up today, I'll tell her what you asked, and she can give you a proper answer when you get home."

"Oh NO!" said the child horrorstruck. "PLEASE don't do that, Mr. FreeThinke. PLEASE!"

"Teetee, don't you think it's time we settled down to try to learn a little Schumann?" was all I said.

"Oh YES!" she said sounding suddenly relieved.

I hope you see what I meant by relating that droll little story from the past?

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
AOW had a useful suggestion in the previous thread. Why not try a thread with peole discussing their favorite poem, novel, piece of music, film ... try to find common ground rather than the contention of the political.

Gasp! You think that I had a good idea!

Anyway, I am going to do that favorite-poem post later this month. As FT rightly pointed out, choosing one poem is probably impossible. So, I'll ask commenters for favorite poem in whatever categories.

I'm in a poetry mood as I'm teaching British Literature this year. Not that wonderful poetry is limited to the British Isles, of course.

I'm getting worn out with politics these days. I've got enough personal doom and gloom without piling all all the political doom and gloom all the time. Hence, my post today about aging in place -- takes planning, the kind of planning that youth or relative youth often ignores.

Always On Watch said...

I see that Limbaugh -- to whom I NEVER listen, BTW -- has lost 7 sponsors thus far.

I agree with FT: Rush should never have apologized, especially with that I'm-an-entertainer crap. He knows full well that he is regarded by many as much more than an entertainer.

Damn, I hate to think what I'm going to hear about Limbaugh when next I have a political chat with my liberal neighbor. And my neighbor's poor wife! She has been a devotee of Limbaugh's for ages.

Always On Watch said...

The woman's name "Fluke" is just too much for me! Yeah, I've poked fun at her name. People poke fun at mine too, so what the hell.

Silverfiddle said...

Silver, if you do business in the public square, then how you do that business becomes a public concern.

How does one do business outside of the public square?

And if the government told you you had to do business with your pants around your ankles, would that be OK?

Always On Watch said...

Interesting:

Obama's Manufactured Media Tactic

You know the story by now, right? Republicans run the he-man women haters club. As the media has it the story goes like this: poor, unassuming, innocent Georgetown coed, accidentally ends up in front of Congress pleading for "reproductive rights." Evil mean conservatives led by scalawag Rush Limbaugh unfairly call her a slut and announce a war on women to end their “access to contraception.”

Of course, that's the left-wing media's narrative. The real tale is that this is as manufactured a story as you can find, one created for the purpose of assisting Obama and his Democrat cohorts win the upcoming election. It's all a scam.

The "coed" in question is one Sandra Fluke, a young woman that has been presented as some sort of expert in "reproductive rights" (another one of those faux rights we that have been foisted onto the public debate of late), but is she? Where did Mz Fluke really come from and what is her background? Why was she presented as some sort of "expert" by a sitting Congresswoman, the former Speaker of the House, no less?

The media is presenting this Fluke character as if she is just a fresh-faced, wide-eyed, 23-year-old coed that has been accidentally swept up in this story. But the fact is, this Fluke woman is hardly the simple Georgetown coed that she's being portrayed as. Fluke has years of big government, left-wing activism under her belt. It's hardly a "fluke" that she was the one picked to ladle out this coordinated election season campaign game plan....


More at the above link.

I hate to say this, but I believe that Limbaugh fell right into a trap that was set for him.

Obama and his minions have long wanted Limbaugh silenced.

Anonymous said...

As long as we're clarifying points for Jez, we should point out that mere speech alone cannot be adjudged treason in the United States. Treason requires action.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Constitution: Article 3, Section 3

We're quite serious about free speech, occasionally to our own detriment.



viburnum

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I hate to say this, but I believe that Limbaugh fell right into a trap that was set for him.

Obama and his minions have long wanted Limbaugh silenced."

Of course. Limbaugh had absolutely no control over his flapping gums as they vilified this woman, calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" and then saying he deserved a video of her having sex if she wants contraceptive coverage from her insurance. Right. Rush had no control over his mouth?

This is nothing new for the loud-mouthed coward.

On his short-lived teevee show years ago, he publicly humiliated 12-year old Chelsea Clinton and compared her looks to a dog. Did he fall into a trap then too?

Limbaugh has a history of being an unapologetic cad. He's attacked African Americans, children, handicapped people, and now a woman who had the temerity to speak before Congress on a subject she's interested in.

You people still make excuses for this creep? Go right ahead. It's a nice insight into your values.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah, AOW, Rush has been taking a serious hurt from this.
If he had just said on day two that calling the woman a slut was over the line it would have bown over but he went after her for three straight days and the backlash was on.

At the beginning of all this I said that Obummer executed a brilliant political coup by introducing contraception into the political argument. Makes us more cynical about government but what do any of them care ... this has really harmed Republicans.

Anonymous said...

The new (barely) improved version:
|
|
|
|
|

An audacious floozy named Fluke
Has ideas that make decent folk puke.
She's petitioned a Judge
To help nurse her grudge.
If a Brit, he would flip his peruke!


~ FreeThinke

NEW-MINTED PROVERB DU JOUR:

The degree to which one is hated by one's enemies, is a measure of the success one is having in one's efforts to daunt and defeat them.

~ FreeThinke

Pip Pip and Cheerio!

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The degree to which one is hated by one's enemies, is a measure of the success one is having in one's efforts to daunt and defeat them."

A great comment, Sir, on the success Mr. Obama is having these days.

Thank you.

Ducky's here said...

"But the fact is, this Fluke woman is hardly the simple Georgetown coed that she's being portrayed as."

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

I'd say that editor of the Georgetown law review means she's got some chops, no doubt.

Z said...

Twoguys...good one! "And the right is here to help you spell correctly."

By the way, Rush was, of course, right....imagine a young single woman going on television and in front of the senate and whining about not getting free contraception...particularly when she can get it at a Planned Parenthood clinic near her.
"You've come a long way, baby"...down the sewer, in the ridiculous shelter of Political Correctness and obfuscation of the truth, as KP so wisely pointed out.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Shaw: You people still make excuses for this creep?

Excellent diversion, Shaw. Can you show us where I've made any excuses for Rush?

Anonymous said...

Viburnum said"

"As long as we're clarifying points for Jez, we should point out that mere speech alone cannot be adjudged treason in the United States. Treason requires action."

Hi, Vi,

I'm fully aware of that. It is my contention, however, that the definition should be considerably BROADENED. After all, "The thought is father to the deed."

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

I've already discussed my thoughts on this at some length above. Every, of course, is free to disagree, but not to misunderstand my meaning.

~ FreeThinke

Country Thinker said...

Just letting you know I'm here lurking, SF! Love the title, clear, concise, and accurate.

Anonymous said...

FT: "I'm fully aware of that. It is my contention, however, that the definition should be considerably BROADENED."

We tried that once: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719

Unfortunately, all the people prosecuted under it sounded a lot like us ;-)

I'd seriously hate to give that kind of power to anyone in government today.

viburnum

Ducky's here said...

z, was Rush right to call her a slut and a prostitute?

Was he right to say he should get something for paying for her contraceptives (another bald faced lie) and she can pay by posting the tapes online?

Three days of that stuff? Advertisers think he went over the line.

I'm sure a loser like Rush knows a lot about paying for it but he can keep it to himself.

Jack Camwell said...

Yes, a woman on birth control is DEFINITELY a sex-crazed strumpet.

What is wrong with all of you? Is everyone here over the age of 45? You know, the statistics say that 98% of American women have used birth control at some point in their lives.

My guess is that plenty of married women are on birth control. Are they "strumpets" because they enjoy having sex with their husbands without getting pregnant?

Ducky's here said...

I would think Freethinker was knowledgeable about the sedition act.

Right wingers are always bragging on how they know the Constitution and know history ... blah blah blah.

Remember, Freethinker, the left is here to help you live the life of the mind.

Anonymous said...

Jack: "What is wrong with all of you? Is everyone here over the age of 45? "

I hesitate to ask, Jack ...but what the hell does that have to do with it?

viburnum

Anonymous said...

One of the greatest of all ironies in this old world is the way great virtues, noble ideals and the best of intentions that sincere, well-meaning -- even brilliant -- people discover, devise, champion and put into practice can be twisted and perverted by mischievous, power-hungry "game players" to the point where those noble precepts can be used to destroy the kind of people -- and the very spirit -- that identified, codified and implemented them in the first place.

In that regard the sainted first amendment has functioned as a trap wherein we can be tricked and bamboozled into surrendering everything that once made life pleasant and worthwhile for the majority of Americans.

Oh well, life, itself is a paradox, so why shouldn't most facets of it follow suit?

Life is so absurd, so bizarre, so unfair and so contrary to reason that it just should not be, yet there it is -- and its ALL we have.

Not a comforting thought considering what our benighted species is bound and determined to make of it!

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

Look, Ducky, I'm entitled to my opinion, you're entitled to yours, and Rush is entitled to his.
Who the heck listens to Rush Limbaugh, anyway? He supposedly has millions of listeners but I don't know anybody who listens to him faithfully. I've maybe listened to him for a whole hour in the last 20 years.
And yes, I think she's cheap, I think she's obfuscating, dishonest, and should be utterly ashamed of herself.
But, I know...we can't 'go there' anymore...the fact that she needs to have sex at Georgetown and wants others to pay for her enjoyment can't be slammed....she has 'rights' ptui.
Well then, great....If I had a gun, I'd be demanding that the Constitution says you have to pay for my ammunition. You game?

I say she's cheap, shameless, and sending a horrible message to young girls that sex is cheap, you can't control yourself any better than a rabbit can, you better go hook up in the dorm, and good luck with STDs and, ya...maybe you'll have to kill your fetus some day, too.
And I pity them and the creeps who want to have sex with women who've been used like a prostitute. Oh, I know, they're not prostitutes because they know their johns..and oh, nobody's paying them to..
oh, wait a minute.
Maybe we ARE.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Excellent diversion, Shaw. Can you show us where I've made any excuses for Rush?"

Wasn't responding to you. If you read my comment, you'll see I was responding to AOW, who laughingly claimed Limbaugh was trapped into saying what he did!

Z wrote:

"I say she's cheap, shameless, and sending a horrible message to young girls that sex is cheap, you can't control yourself any better than a rabbit can, you better go hook up in the dorm, and good luck with STDs and, ya...maybe you'll have to kill your fetus some day, too."

Are you serious? Ms. Fluke said nothing approaching this. Apparently, you are so sex-crazed yourself that anything anyone says about contraception you construe to be about wanton sex. Go back and read her testimony, and you'll discover that you are the one who is cheapening this whole discussion with your insane over-sexed accusations. She said nothing close to your hysteria.


"And I pity them and the creeps who want to have sex with women who've been used like a prostitute. Oh, I know, they're not prostitutes because they know their johns..and oh, nobody's paying them to..
oh, wait a minute."

Wow! Just wow! You have a perverted view about women and human sexuality. The slime is coming from your mind, not Ms. Fluke's. Thankfully, you are a very small minority, and will grow ever smaller with each passing generation.

Praise Darwin!

Anonymous said...

"The left is here to help you live the life of the mind."


Oh NO! The left is here to do is level best to drive me out OF my mind.


Not succeeding, but the tedium of dealing with aggressive inanity is a drain on one's energies.

~ FreeThinke


Two things were killed off in the Nineteen Sick-sties -- GOOD TASTE and COMMON SENSE. The world is much the poorer for their absence.

Ducky's here said...

1968 The Year of the Triphammer.

Great times.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Ms. Shaw, that the Religious Right does tend to get much too huffy puffy about sex. Evangelicals tend also foam at the mouth and go into paroxysms of righteous rage about things that don't properly concern them.

However, my major concern in all this political wrangling is to get rid of the busybodies of all political stripes who want to supervise and micro-manage our lives and fortunes in areas of their choosing.

Both Left AND Right are wrong in this determination. I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian, and as such I want everybody to get off my back, off my property, out of my relationships, out of my pocketbook and away from investment portfolio.

As for this particular sorry subject, I think it's spurious nonsense -- a non-issue -- contrived to set the stage for yet-another liberal power grab.

This Fluke woman is obviously a Political Operative in the process of trying to stage a coup.

This is no more about "Women's Health" than it about better ways to make chocolate fudge -- and I think you know it.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Silverfiddle, a topic you might take a stab at in the future. It's a difficult ruling to tackle but important.

The activist Roberts court has found a way to confirm corporate personhood while ignoring the Alien Torts Act.

Essentially they are maneuvering to give corporations rights without responsibilities. It's being played out without anything in the press.

They own us and those stiffs are on the bench for life thanks to the "genius" of the founding inepts.

Silverfiddle said...

@Ducky: z, was Rush right to call her a slut and a prostitute?

You directed it to Z, but I'll give you my opinion. No, it was wrong.

Were I that woman's dad or brother, I would have publicly called Rush out and threatened to beat the crap out of him if he didn't apologize immediately.

You just don't insult people like that. It's trashy.

Usually, he can pull stuff like this off, but he really went over the line, and ironically handed the left a big propaganda coup.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: You completely missed the issue, but thanks for stopping by.

Silverfiddle said...

The activist Roberts court has found a way to confirm corporate personhood while ignoring the Alien Torts Act.

I am woefully ill-equipped to discuss those issues. I don't even know what the alien torts act is. I take it it's not about exotic desserts.

"Personhood" as a legal fiction for corporations and organizations has been around a long time. It didn't start with the Roberts court, and the left really plays fast and loose with our general public ignorance of the subject. A corporation is a person? Can it vote? Can it marry someone?

Ducky's here said...

Any ideas why the insurance policy for the Georgetown faculty includes contraception but the student policy does not?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"This is no more about "Women's Health" than it about better ways to make chocolate fudge -- and I think you know it."

I respectfully disagree, Mr. Free Thinke.

And I would rather exchange poetry and talk about favorite opera arias than discuss this, for I fear it would bring further disapprobation upon me from you.

Finntann said...

Dang Viburnum, you stole my response to Jez and FT. FT and I have had words previously over the definition of terrorism.

Jersey... If the government has the right to dictate that insurers provide free contraception, than surely it has the right to dictate that grocery stores provide free milk and bars a free shot of whisky with every beer.

Wait... a free shot of whisky with every beer? SIGN ME UP I WANNA BE A LIBERAL.

Ducky, We...or at least I have no problem with contraceptives. If Pharma wants to toss them like beads off a Mardi Gras float, that's their business, HELL, private hospitals can give away free abortions if they want, or a free abortion with every breast implant, they're answerable only to their board and stockholders.

The issue is that government does not have the constitutional power to make anyone give anything away for free.

Massachussetts Catholic Hospitals were right to scream like mad at being forced to provide morning after pills. Me, I'm a dick, I would have closed the hospitals and told them to hike their sorry asses to Boston where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a hospital.

According to the Catholic Health Association of the US, there are nine Catholic Hospitals in Massachusetts out of roughly 180 hospitals statewide, that's like 5%. Yeah, terrible inconvenience, ain't it.

Is Big Daddy Govahmint going to tell an Amish hardware store owner he has to sell screws if his beliefs are such that he can only sell nails? This is bullshit, don't like it go to another frigging hardware store. Government does not have a right to tell a private business what to stock.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Do you want me to pay for the dinner and the movie too?

Cheers!

Finntann said...

... er, the definition of treason.

Ducky's here said...

So Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage for the staff and faculty ... so much for the bullshit issue of compromised beliefs.

However, the students are FORCED to purchase insurance that does not cover contraception even though they might prefer one that did. Sound like "freedom" or right wing hypocrisy?

Silverfiddle, the king of walking into the straight right.

Silverfiddle said...

Forced? So every student, as a condition of matriculation, must purchase insurance from the university?

To answer the other question, the university can offer whatever it damn well pleases.

Don't throw your shoulder out punching the air, Ducky...

Finntann said...

"the students are FORCED to purchase insurance"

How barbaric!

Really, are they forced?

If so that's wrong.

Can't they buy insurance on the open market? Oh I forgot, blind in both eyes, two broken legs, and born without hands.

Sound like "freedom" or right wing hypocrisy?

Sounds like a union to me.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Ducky: "So Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage for the staff and faculty."

They do? At a Jesuit institution? I'll be damned

viburnum

Liberalmann said...

Really? You morons on the right would let a loser say, like Santorum take away your reproductive rights and contraception or even life saving procedures like amniocentesis? That's what they want. This isn't about sex, you dolts.

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Shaw got THAT from my comment? "Wow, just WOW" :-)
ya, Shaw, I'm 'sex crazed', and I'm even 'huffy puffy' because I think a young woman should be embarrassed for having gone to the senate whining about her contraception.

It's frankly more "Wow, JUST WOW" that she isn't.

Of course my comment was a little hyperbole...and it sure does make my point (of course, it's obvious I didn't suggest Ms Fluke said that, read it again. I saw her testimony live, no worries, I HEARD HER). She could get insurance elsewhere, or go to Planned Parenthood..but, apparently, that might get her "huffy puffy",or GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE! :-) "Wow, JUST WOW"

Silverfiddle said...

Liberalman:

I am tired of your stupid, typed-out excrement.

You are the moron for commenting without reading the article.

You are stupid. Perhaps you tried reading the article, but your reading comprehension is stupified by smoking too much hopium?

Your comments would be more effective if written in crayon.

Anonymous said...

Finntann: Dang Viburnum, you stole my response to Jez and FT. FT and I have had words previously over the definition of ...treason

I don't disagree with FT that free speech is a dangerous weapon to hand to the unscrupulous, I just can't foresee any circumstance where the cure isn't worse than the disease. I'd hate to see a 'speech czar' in Washington. To coin a paraphrase 'when free speech is illegal only criminals will have a podium'.

Let them talk, ... 'and remove all doubt'

viburnum

Finntann said...

Allow me to exercise my free speech while I still have it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Ducky's here said...

vibanum, they do at Boston College also ... and Fordham and Villanova and St. John's.

KP said...

As someone trying to be objective, Rush undermines conservative points of view. In this blog crucible, Shaw's comments to Z and Liberalmann do the same. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean you broadcast it or post it.

jez said...

viburnum: "We're quite serious about free speech, occasionally to our own detriment."

I think we all are, with the possible exception of FreeThinke. Does my point still fall if you substitute sedition for treason? Or any of these crimes?

Anonymous said...

jez: "Does my point still fall if you substitute sedition for treason? Or any of these crimes?"

I'm not sure either instance of the sedition act would cover the sort of speech to which FT takes exception.

The 1798 act would have had most of us, on both sides of the room, in jail at one point or another for criticizing the government.

The 1918 edition largely concerned interference with recruitment during the war, but was chiefly used to silence the far left. Or what was then the far left and is now the current administration and the DNC.

And how that came about is, I believe, Free Thinke's point.

viburnum

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify that, I meant that there was no single point that could have been covered under the act. The change has been far more subtle.

viburnum

Anonymous said...

"I don't disagree with FT that free speech is a dangerous weapon to hand to the unscrupulous, I just can't foresee any circumstance where the cure isn't worse than the disease."

Thank you for that, Viburnum, and I don't disagree -- at all -- when we are living in what-might-loosely-be-described-as "Normal Times" -- it's a different matter, however, when we are at war -- or at least it should be.

How anyone, as a practical matter, could NOT define public utterances and organized campaigns of "persuasion" deliberately designed to give aid and comfort to an enemy as "treason" is beyond my feeble powers of comprehension.

The sainted Abraham Lincoln could never have succeeded in staging the Civil War -- and certainly could not have "won" it, if that's what we're supposed to believe he did -- WITHOUT suspending Habeas Corpus and either jailing or otherwise intimidating all meaningful opposition into silence. Lincoln became to all intents and purposes an Almighty Dictator who worked almost exclusively outside the limits of the Constitution. The irony is that he is REVERED for it. We've been indoctrinated with an invented "mythology" to accept what he did as "great and good" without question.

Do I "approve" of what Lincoln did just because it enabled him to become "victorious?"

Not really, but that's a subject for another day. I'd rather not get into it right now.

My POINT in his discussion is this: If you really do want your own cherished views to prevail and become public policy, I doubt very seriously that it can be done by working strictly within the confines of the Law. Sometimes in order to win you have to fight dirty -- unless you take a priggish satisfaction in being a loser subjected to the whims and dictatorial commands of those with whom you are not in sympathy.

If you think it's better to allow yourself to become someone's galley slave -- bow your head, accept your chains and wear them meekly as you row to the crack of the whip -- than to disobey the sacred precepts of the law, then I'm not your man.

Would I lie, steal cheat or kill to remain free or to protect those whom I love? You're God-damned right I would -- or at least die trying. Real life is not a "game" that can always be subjected to prescribed Rules of Order. Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do in order to survive.

Sorry, I'm an inveterate pragmatist.

I'd hate to see a 'speech czar' in Washington.

Oh SO WOULD I, which is precisely why I'd love to be in a position to cage, defang and milk the poison from all the venomous creatures who seek to do to us EXACTLY what you have defined -- turn our beautifully designed representative republic into a Krappy Kommunist Kingdom ruled by Krackpots from Academia -- mostly descendants of formerly-oppressed minorities who've prospered in this country, yet who still hunger and thirst to wreak vengeance for the historic suffering of their parents by turning the tables on the sons and daughters of their former oppressors.

Despite all the turgid bombast, high-falutin, intellectual pretension, and pseudo-idealistic rhetoric, it all boils down to TIT for TAT.

In the final analysis REALPOLITIK is the ONLY reality.

Ideals are wonderful -- but only when and if you an afford them. They don't work on a battlefield.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Viburnum,

Just in case there's any doubt, I've thought very highly of you ever since you "emerged" here not long ago.

You're more of a gentleman and probably more learned than I, but we see eye to eye more often than not.

Thank you for considering and showing some understanding for many differing points of view including mine.

I'm just sick and tired of always being on the losing side, because the people who are supposed to represent me are --metaphorically speaking -- too busy filing their nails, fussing with their hair, and making sure they choose appropriate garments while indulging in poisonous gossip about each other to engage in meaningful combat with the looming Forces of Darkness now poised to overwhelm us.

The Republican party reminds me of the leaders of ancient Rome who preferred to observe the spectacle of naumachia in the safe confines of the Colosseum than to engage in combat on the high seas, themselves.

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
If he had just said on day two that calling the woman a slut was over the line it would have bown over but he went after her for three straight days...

Three days in a row? Are you kidding me?

Makes me glad that I don't listen to Limbaugh.

Always On Watch said...

Shaw Kenawe,
...I was responding to AOW, who laughingly claimed Limbaugh was trapped into saying what he did!...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain to you exactly what I meant....

I do not contend that the Obama administration deliberately set a trap so that Limbaugh would call Fluke a slut. However, it appears that, from the beginning, Fluke came to GU to change the institution's policy about birth control for students. GU is run by Jesuits, and I'm sure that Fluke read all the policy information before enrolling.

Besides, I can't ignore the fact that Obama phoned Fluke to give her words of "encouragement." Obama saw the chance to take advantage of Limbaugh's shooting off his mouth.

Will all this take Limbaugh off the air? I think that it's possible. We shall see.

In my view, Limbaugh has done serious damage to the GOP in this latest incident. It's going to come back to bite conservatives on the ass. We are known by the company we keep (or defend) -- although that rule never applies to Obama.

Always On Watch said...

How many times has Limbaugh apologized over the Fluke remark?

Anyway, in my view, he apologized first because of the danger of losing sponsors and apologized even more when he saw sponsors pulling away.

twoguys2012 said...

KP,

"Just because you have a thought doesn't mean you broadcast it or post it."

Um, then why are YOU here? Why am I here? Why are any of us here, on WH, writing comments?

Always On Watch said...

Z,
By the way, Rush was, of course, right....imagine a young single woman going on television and in front of the senate and whining about not getting free contraception...particularly when she can get it at a Planned Parenthood clinic near her.

I agree with you.

HOWEVER

He harped on it too much.

Limbaugh doesn't seem to realize that what he spouts can cause trouble for conservatives in general as many believe that he is one of the significant faces of conservatism.

Obama's calling up Fluke to "encourage" her has drawn new lines in this mess. And the truth is that Obama usually comes out smelling like a rose when such lines are drawn.

I note that Gingrich and Santorum have condemned Limbaugh's name calling of Fluke.

So, here we are again -- with yet another mess for the GOP.

Anonymous said...

AOW, I practically revere Rush -- not so much for what
s he's doing today as for the vitally important role he has played in unmasking the hypocrisy, illogic and multiple standards practiced by Democrats and the Media, and opening these formerly "unmentioned and unmentionable" things to spirited discussion. Rush, almost singlehandedly helped alter the face of the nation and change the course of history.

For a long time he was brilliantly outrageous, witty and wise -- almost a latter day Jonathan Swift -- but lately he seems to have gotten a bit lazy, and drones on with too much standardized anti-Obama rhetoric. These days days I find Rush more tiremsome than offensive.

Let's face it: MOST of his targets richly deserve to be insulted, upbraided, verbally abused, pilloried, hanged, burnt at the stake or drawn and quartered.

Too bad he's become less humorous and more doctrinaire these last few years.

BUT, I still listen to him almost every day -- though not continuously. Classical Music on NPR receives the lion's share of my attention whenever I turn on a radio.

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

FT,
I've never been one to listen to much talk radio -- likely because my mother did so and was always calling in. I listen to audio books in my car and never turn on the radio here at home (unless I access Sirius XM on Mr. AOW's iPad).

I can't really comment specifically about Limbaugh's radio show as I've listened to it in part only three times -- and that was quite a long time ago.

I used to read the Limbaugh letter, which a friend gave me. Good stuff, no doubt, back then (2005-2008).

I don't doubt that Limbaugh dishes out what the Left deserves. But this time, I think that he went too far -- especially if he called Fluke a slut three days in a row. Why would he harp on that when there really are many other important matters that need to be brought to the listeners' attention?

Always On Watch said...

Ye, gods!

...birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law....

More at the above link.

Ducky's here said...

@Freethinker ...though not continuously. Classical Music on NPR receives the lion's share of my attention whenever I turn on a radio.

-------
My goodness, consuming a government funded broadcast?

The last private classical station in Boston was bought and merged into NPR a couple years ago.

Rather unfortunate. Now you have a single station catering to the Baroque lovers. Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg? Hardly ever played.

I'm waiting for the day NPR plays Xenakis and you explode, Freethinker.

Anyway, thanks for what little we get from subsidized radio. Jazz, blues, folk would all be off the dial and you'd be listening to "adult contemporary" and crappy salsa.

Z said...

Anybody remember when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut? He was off the air for 2 weeks and then back again. Barely mentioned in the media. No one called for advertisers to go.

interesting times.

Ducky's here said...

Yes, I do. The apology came the next day. Unlike the Vulgar Pigboy who went on for three days attacking a student not a media celebrity.

Even a right winger can tell the difference.

Silverfiddle said...

We can point out the motes in other people's eyes all day. The point is, there are as many cads on the left as the right. Actually moreso if you count them, if nothing else because the vast majority of entertainers are lefties.

I actually find the lefty two minutes hate entertaining, with the red faces, the horror and outrage, little feet stamping, paws punching the sky in rage...

Right Wing Theocrat said...

The left will make everyone else pay for everything they can get away with. From free contraception to abortions of new-born babies if they could. Whoever screams the loudest and plucks the emotions the best will get the taxpayers dollar. And they don't even dream of asking the taxpayer if they want to pay for all this crap.

"Nobody is proposing to deny women access to contraception."

Exactly, i'm surprised these leftie whackjobs haven't shrilly proclaimed that it's equivalent to state-sponsored gang raping of women.

KP said...

twoguys2012 said...

"Just because you have a thought doesn't mean you broadcast it or post it."

<< Um, then why are YOU here? Why am I here? Why are any of us here, on WH, writing comments? >>

Good question twoguys2012.

I can think of three reasons to be here and comment (you may have more):

1) entertainment
2) vent anger
3) change opinion

I think our brilliant host (SF) does his best to do all three with focus on #3. It must take an enormous effort to create and maintain such a place. As well, when you put yourself out front you will be attacked. Thanks SF!

Personally, I focus on #1 and #3. I would rather ride my bike or run a canyon the tell somebody to f*ck off on a blog. In my view, if you are going to tell someone to f*ck off then do it to somebody's face or on the freeway where you might face some recourse. You'll notice I am not anonymous on the internet. Perhaps that helps me govern myself.

Irrational posts come from both sides. I have written some ugly responses to posters and authors over the years. Fortunately, I usually re-read them before I post and often do some editing.

It's kind of like dishing some discipline on your kids; they might forget it if you blow your stack but you won't; so act as if they are going to remember every-single-thing you do.

Silverfiddle said...

Thank you for your gracious comments, KP. I don't think I'm brilliant, but I try.

". I would rather ride my bike or run a canyon the tell somebody to f*ck off on a blog. In my view, if you are going to tell someone to f*ck off then do it to somebody's face or on the freeway where you might face some recourse."

Amen!

I don't know how I come off online, but I am not a provoking person. Neither is my wife. When we have the inevitable marital spat, the natural reaction for both of us is to disengage and cool off. That's probably why we're still married and more in love every day.

Z said...

you are brilliant.

Would you believe I"m not provoking person in personal relationships, either? And, unlike you, I DO know how I come off on line :-)

Silverfiddle said...

Z, you are a very grounded person and a beautiful soul. It all comes out brilliantly on-line.

Thank you for the compliment.

KP said...

Let me share with you how you come off online; damn good, brother Silverfiddle.

When I posted that every time we have reflexive thoughts we don't have to post them I guess I was reminding myself of that fact. I am weak :)

I am center right. But in my view if we remove ideology, and off color outburst, Ducky and JMJ have some of the most entertaining and top shelf input here. If they were not so secretive I would have contacted them to learn more.

It's all good. It it were not, I'd be gone. Like Montgomery Gentry said:

"Gone like a freight-train, gone like yesterday ...

Even better are their lyrics to "You Do Your Thing and I'll Do Mine"

KP said...

SF said, << Z, you are a very grounded person and a beautiful soul. It all comes out brilliantly on-line. >>

True, true ... there is some KP lock on Z too!

Keep it rollin' ...

Silverfiddle said...

Thank you KP. I still can't figure Jersey out, but we have discussed here in a few different threads the prospect of FreeThinke, Ducky and I traveling back in tine to baroque Europe.

Anyway, next time you travel to Colorado please let me know. I'd love to have a beer or go hiking, although you'd kick my ass on the trail even though you're older than me, proving the point that calendar age means nothing ;)

Seriously dude, you give me hope that if I stay active I don't need to worry about aging.

KP said...

SF, that would be nice, mang!

jez said...

Well this is all more emotionally literate than a typical Englishman is comfortable with, but anyway I want to add my voice to the chorus of praise for silverfiddle. You pull off a very impressive balancing act, which I think is only possible when you're a nicer person than I. On which note, very sorry for my recent lapses, which disrespect both the blog and you.

Porky said...

Frankly Darlin, I think that slut is a Prostitute.

Silverfiddle said...

Thanks Jez. Yeah, I know, Brits don't even talk like this after too many beers, (but some Irishmen do).

Thank you as well, But I don't know what lapses of yours you could be talking about?

jez said...

You are such a gentleman :)

Anonymous said...

Why worry about aging in any event?

It's only something that will happen to you, if you're very lucky.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

Two men I respect so much say that about me....I can't thank you enough, SF and KP.
xxx

Anonymous said...

@Ducky: z, was Rush right to call her a slut and a prostitute?

You directed it to Z, but I'll give you my opinion. No, it was wrong.


"There is NOTHING either right OR wrong, but THINKING makes it so." [emphasis added]

~ Will Shakespeare

Amen, Brother Will. AMEN!

~ FT