Ft. Hood and The Cult of Indiscriminateness
by Evan SayetMy old writing partner, the Leftist animation writer Steve Marmel, posited a question recently. He was thrown by the concept of “fairness” in the news, arguing — rightly — that facts and truth, not “balance,” should be the news media’s objective.
And it once was.
All this changed with the “cultural revolution” of the 1960s when objectivity went out of style. The argument put forth by the Modern Liberals was that the individual is incapable of being objective. They argue everything a person believes is so tainted by their personal bigotries – bigotries borne of the color of their skin, the color of their hair, the nation of their great-great-great grandfather’s birth, their height, their sex and their weight, etc. — that the only way to eliminate the evils of bigotry is to eliminate all attempts at rational thought.
Since the 1960s, the Modern Liberal has been preaching that rational thought is a hate crime.
Writing about this phenomenon as it relates to one of the communities most infected with the Modern Liberal dogma, the leftist news media, the great Thomas Sowell argued that the quest for objectivity has been replaced with the quest for ”neutrality.” What’s the difference between objective reporting and neutral reporting?
Consider a journalist covering a football game and the Jets have just defeated the hapless Patriots 57-3. (Hey, this is MY post, I can make up the score.) An objective journalist would write a report about how the Jets are a better team than are the Patriots. The story would feature key plays and decisions that highlighted New York’s superiority to the New England franchise on that day.
Consider the coverage of Nidal Hasan’s massacre of 14 innocent people at Ft. Hood. The objective reporter writes about the clear and obvious link between the murderer and his Muslim faith. But the neutral reporter — the one who has been taught that he cannot imply in any way that one culture or one religion is better or worse than any other — will not only not write the objective truth, but he will seek to invent a narrative that proves the murderer has been victimized.
Just as the sports reporter could not write that the Jets are a better team and therefore had to turn the good into the bad (the cheater), the neutral news reporter had no choice (i.e. would not be a “good reporter”) unless he ignored the truth, which, in turn, left him no choice but invent a storyline where the mass murderer was the victim and his victims the bad guys.
“Neutrality” is just another form of the indiscriminateness that I write about and another example of how indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminatess of policy but rather invariably and inevitably sees the Modern Liberal side with evil over good, wrong over right, and failure over success.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
104 Comments
http://www.diversenews.com/2009/11/12/fort-hood-m...
Once again, Evan, another touchdown! Keep 'em comin"!
Always refreshing commentary.
Sounds kind of like what we are doing with our children at soccer games. You get a trophy for showing up. Just like getting a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Michael Chavez and DNC DUDES, Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink said: Ft. Hood and The Cult of Indiscriminateness http://tinyurl.com/yfnlelt [...]
in the liberal lexicon 'truth' is subjective…
To the analysis of the person. If you are of leftist perspective, you pick and choose what 'truths' work to advance your cause (global warming, anyone?) for the agenda cannot be held hostage tothe truth.
Sound like the health care debate? Read on…
There are those of us who let the truth take them wherever it leads. On the right it would be- well Mr Breitbart's efforts seem particularly notable, maybe renegades like Alex Jones.
On the left Dennis Kucinich, as wacky as he is, and once upon a time Ralph Nader. Most everyone else has an agenda that allows for selective reporting of the truth.
Shame, that…
Good stuff Evan, I'm looking forward to your book.
For those who still may not know who evan Sayet is I recommend watching this: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1... or checkout his original speech on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
Good stuff Evan, I'm looking forward to your book.
For those who still may not know who evan Sayet is I recommend watching this: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1... or checkout his original speech on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
I have been trying to comprehend this phenomenon for some time now. Thank you for explaning it in a way that makes sense.
But what still doesn't make sense is that these same people who try to make everything neutral have no problem vilifying those who do not agree with them! For example, there is nothing neutral about their hatred of conservatives or conservative ideas, nothing neutral about their treatment of people like George Bush and Sarah Palin, nothing neutral about their hatred of Christianity, etc.
That's the part that still makes no sense to me.
As a result of the Ft. Hood murders, new recruits to the Army who have disclosed any family history of depression or other mental illness on their applications are being DE-ENLISTED.
That's right- if you are a muslim with contacts in the terrorism industry, you may remain in the Army. But if you are an upstanding citizen whose grandma had bi-polar disorder, out you go!
A young man who attends my church has just suffered this de-enlistment setback. His life has been severely disrupted by liberalism and the P.C. culture. I anticipate welcoming him to conservative thought.
Unbelievable!
If liberals continue to reward mediocrity, and conservatives continue to reward excellence, the end result should be positive.
Except government intervention keeps changing the rules.
In my opinion, to the modern liberal, the truth is no more complicated than what they choose to believe.
As long as you brought up Kucinich, you know he's one of the few modern liberal democrats I actually respect. He has the guts to tell voters and reporters exactly what he honestly believes and wants to do.
He's also bat shit crazy, but at least he's honest about it. A very rare trait on the left.
behind every apparent double standard lies an unconfessed single standard.
There's a problem with your link, but I think this is what you had in mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
And yes, it's powerful and riveting. I usually can't tolerate video on the net longer than a couple of minutes, but I watched this all the way through.
I love hearing the stories of former modern liberals conversion. Remind me of my own journey.
They also give me hope for the future.
There's a problem with your link, but I think this is what you had in mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
And yes, it's powerful and riveting. I usually can't tolerate video on the net longer than a couple of minutes, but I watched this all the way through.
I love hearing the stories of former modern liberals conversion. Remind me of my own journey.
They also give me hope for the future.
There may be many of our finest wanting to be DE-ENLISTED with this CinC in charge.
Silly,
You don't get a Nobel Prize for doing nothing. You get a Nobel Prize for giving the impression that you might do something. Check your facts.
Modern liberalism is a house of cards constructed on the concept that emotions should rule the day, not facts, logic or reason. As a matter of fact reason, logic and facts are kryptonite to modern liberals.
So modern liberals are taught by their handlers on the left to avoid them at all costs. Under no circumstance are they to think, listen to, or even entertain anyone or anything that doesn't completely comply with their conformity.
Also, emotions can be hard to control. If the level of emotions drops, then the possibility of reason might slip through and the modern liberal begins to think for themselves. Another no-no.
So instead of debating based on reason and facts, attack,insult, be little, and ignore. And in the down time between pretend debates, the left needs to keep them riled up so they don't have time to think. Enter Bush, Cheney, Palin etc.
With Christianity and most religions, they adhere to a moral code, that if broken is considered a sin. That's an moral absolute. No wiggle room. That also spells the end of the rage filled, emotionally riled modern liberal. Can't have that.
Here's an example of a modern liberal debate thinking.
Modern Liberal: I'm right, and you are wrong. So let's debate that you don't agree with me, and I'll easily prove you don't agree with me. And the longer you fail to realize you don't agree with me is simply more the proof you are an idiot for not agreeing with me.
And when you insist that we should debate an issue on its merit, then I might as well prove how smart and superior I am to you by hurling vindictive, obscene insults, proving how witty I am as well.
This is no joke. This is what the hard core modern liberals actually think. Trust me, I know, I used to be one.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1... This should fix the first link, and thanks EdSki for catching this.
he is a whack job- and that protects him to a certain extent. He is right, though- in his own partisan way- on a host of issues, and he'll usually give you an intellectually honest argument as well. It is a rare trait for most- particularly on the left…
Jets 57 – 3 over the Pats.
I weep for fellow Jets fans.
I guess I'm hoping for conservatives to be elected as representatives, whereupon they'll stop all the intervening and let natural competition work.
I put that video on my Facebook page. I also cannot stand most videos over a few minutes long, but I watched all 45-some odd minutes of this one.
I'll try to remember that one!
I'm not as familiar with the political right in America as I am with the left, I grew up on that pablum, I know it inside and out. I was a master of their art of politics.
But it seems to me conservative politicians talk a good game, but when they get elected 99 times out of a hundred they turn out to be liberals.
This does not surprise me in the slightest.
It angers me, and makes me ashamed, but it does not surprise me.
Barack Chamberlain knows nothing. He is post-historical.
Apparently you get one for spouting what modern liberal/socialist/communist Norwegians believe sounds good.
Part 1
Online was the only place I really got to know people with liberal views. I was fortunate to get to know them as human beings way before I knew anything of their beliefs. That is why it's so hard to hear these things you've said, because I still consider many of these people to be friends. (And decent people overall.)
But I can't argue with what you have said here because I too have seen it firsthand. In fact, nearly all these people have now unfriended me online. That famous "tolerance" on display once more.
It's very strange, because I get the feeling they themselves don't realize these things about themselves and their views that you have explained here. That's why I wish they were still around, so that I could ask them to explain and I could hear things from their own mouth, instead of hearing generalizations like this.
Alas, I have witnessed with my own eyes that these generalizations have proven true, time and time again.
But true, at least according to the young man who had just recently started basic.
I would advise anyone WANTING to join the military to simply not disclose such family history on apps.
Heck, maybe one just doesn't know one's family history in that regard.
Maybe a relative has been MIS-DIAGNOSED….
What if one is adopted, and does not really KNOW the family history?
So many questions, but a knee-jerk reaction is the offered "solution"? Where's the risk assessment? Where's the investigation? Is there going to be a new policy against political correctness? Will all Muslims be de-enlisted?
Insanity.
Great narrative!
Argh! Stupid system ate my post! At least I saved a portion. Will have to divide into two parts yet again:
Part 1
I remember one girl I knew for several years online and even met in person. We were not very close friends, but certainly more than simply nameless/faceless internet acquaintances. We never talked politics or issues in general, so I didn't know her views, at least, not in detail. We were in the middle of instant messaging as we often did. All of a sudden I realized she'd unfriended me on one of the forums we were both on. I joked about it, assuming it was a mistake. After all, here we were talking happily, as we always did.
Part 2
Her response? "I just can't deal with conservatives." (Or some variation of that sentence. Wish I still had the original on the computer.) But yeah, just like that, a friendship of several years was ended. She never spoke to me again. And again, we never once had a conversation about politics or belief systems, much less an argument or any sort of falling out. It felt like a punch in the gut. That was the first of many such incidents from 2004 to today.
May I ask what changed your thinking? It gives me hope for these former friends. Believe it or not, I do still care about them dearly.
Allow me to expand, if I may.
I classify modern liberals into three categories. The lowest on the totem poll are your common, basic, off the shelf, garden variety of liberals. They spend their days working, raising their families, and basically living their lives. The vast majority of this brand only votes democrat because that's what they've done their entire lives, its what their parents did, its what their friends do. If you sit one down and have an honest debate, and they start scratching their head admiring they really haven't thought that much about it, they are not true modern liberals. They only think they are. They can be converted to using reason and logic. I'm not referring to those people in my analysis above.
My own immediate family will no longer debate me over political issues, because they know I'm going to demand proof and documentation, and they know they don't have it. They will however constantly ask me about politics, because they know I've done my home work, and they respect my reasoning. They fall into this category.
The second type are the ones I described above. They are brain dead, borg like autrons. It's a waste of time even speaking to them. Do not even waste your time. Move on the other class where you stand a chance with logic and reason.
And then there's the worst of the worst, the ones running the left. They know its all bull, but they don't care in the least. They get money and power out of directing the dupes in category 2, and tearfully pleading to category 1. Think the Clintons, Edwards, Kerry, Soros, Obama, etc. I despise those people. They know this is all a lie and will lead to disaster, and they don't care.
Listen to nothing from the leaders, ignore the hard cores, and concentrate on the reasonable rank and file, and help them to figure out that nagging thought in the back of their minds they can't quite figure out.
That's reason telling them they are believing bull shit. Help them get in touch with it.
All this changed with the “cultural revolution” of the 1960s when objectivity went out of style.
Anyone else see the similarities between Obama's "cultural revolution" and the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution of Communist China? One was a period of widespread social and political upheaval, which resulted in nation-wide chaos and economic catastrophes, and the other was launched by some dude married to Jiang Qing.
Your comments were very helpful, thank you.
I did manage to have good relationships and conversations with these folks for several years, so that's good. After 2004 things got insane in the culture in general and continues to be so.
It takes years to build relationships, so it's hard to start over with new people. Hopefully whenever I find a job again I will also be able to form relationships with coworkers and attempt to build those bridges that way too. (As much as is possible in a work environment.)
Thanks again.
Had the same thing happen to me on face book with a guy I'd been friends with since the early 1980's.
They have to make a choice to either actually challenge their beliefs or drop you. And you can see the decision they make.
The way I look at it is, trying to debate people like these is like trying to teach a pig to dance. Wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I've never really been a conformist. I have issues with authority, and big issues with really dumb authority, so I never really bought into modern liberalism. But have no contact with conservatism or the right wing in general, I worked with what I had. And that modern liberalism and the MSM.
If I had to nail it to one data point, I'd say a college course I took years ago working towards a comp sci degree. A philosophy course called simply "logic."
Thousands of years ago the ancient Greeks perfected the art of debate. One of the greats (I can never remember which) went so far as to draw up a list of debate arguments that are illogical and there for false by they way their debate is structured. That alone makes them invalid. They called them fallacies.
Let me give you a couple of quick examples. Any time the President (or any politician) begins a statement with 'There are people who say….' He's already lying, no matter what else comes out of their mouths. His entire premise is based on 'some people who say' but by refusing to specifically declare who exactly said it, there is no way to verify they actually said it, so the rest of the statement is based on a total lack of evidence. I forget the Latin translation of the Greek name, but its commonly referred to as a 'straw man argument.' Create a man out of nothing (straw), then knock it down.
Another is called slippery slope. 'If the senate does not pass the stimulus bill, the president can not sign it, and then the economy will completely collapse.' The constitution provides that clause A (Senate pass) is directly connected to clause B (President singing), but there is no proof that clause B must result in clause C (economy collapses). If A then B then C, there is no verifiable proof B must result in C.
I had great fun using these tools on my friend's arguments. When I used them on my own, I didn't fare too well either. So I had to either admit I was a ideological hack, or come up with some beliefs I could justify.
That didn't sit well with my "friends" on the left well at all.
Wait, what? I thought Steve Marmel was a conservative. Didn't he do that show 'This just in' on spike where he was a conservative columnist? Most of his stand up has been overtly conservative too. I'm very confused.
Remember the context of 2004. Bush v. Kerry. The real nut cases on the left never got over Florida in 2000. Goes to the 'I'm right, you're wrong, and if you can't see it that's proof you're stupid' part of my analysis. I know it well. I was on the Gore side, until I saw the evidence unfold and learned the truth. That's when they started turning on my too.
2004 Was the year for revenge. Kerry was going to make the whole world right again for them. Part of modern liberalism is even though its been a consistent failure through out history, all it needs to succeed is the correct Dear Leader. And Kerry was it. Utopia was within reach. They could smell the fruit on the trees. They knew no one who could possibly vote for Bush. In their minds, they turned every one who didn't agree with them into caricatures, easy to hate. All because they were going to win, couldn't possibly lose.
And then they lost.
So they simply redirect the hatred, and continue to let it simmer and boil, and keep stirring the pot. Now that they have the correct Dear Leader, and we're not in Utopia, it must be some one else's fault. Bush, Cheney, Palin, Limbaugh.
The problem isn't with you, it's with them. And you can not fix them. Only they can.
"All this changed with the “cultural revolution” of the 1960s when objectivity went out of style."
I'm afraid not, in fact objectivity has never been in style.
This is so overstated it's ridiculous. It's intended as brain candy for salivating right wingers who care nothing for intellectual integrity. Just two of the most asinine accusations against the left that I've ever read:
"…the only way to eliminate the evils of bigotry is to eliminate all attempts at rational thought."
"…indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminatess of policy but rather invariably and inevitably sees the Modern Liberal side with evil over good, wrong over right, and failure over success."
If this is the best conservatives can do in a post-Buckley America, we're screwed ("we" meaning conservatives.)
http://www.newsprism.com
Oh, yes, 2004 – the year that ended more friendships than I can count. (Not just me, but many other people as well. What a nightmare it was! I've never really been political at all, so this just threw me for a loop. It did prepare me somewhat for 2008, but even that surprised me with the insanity ratcheted up to even more insane levels.
My mistake was assuming that now that they got the leader of their choosing, they would be happy. And it seems they are even MORE unhappy! Still blaming Bush and the gang, still spewing hatred at every turn. It's been very bizarre to see.
Thanks for all your comments. Again, it gives me hope that if you were able to change your thinking, then there's hope for others to do the same. I only wish all these friends had stayed in contact so I could keep speaking to them. But who knows, maybe they will change on their own as you did, and perhaps I'll run into them in the future and be amazed.
Now that's true hope and change that I can stand behind.
Concentrate on the ones you can reach, ignore the ones you can't.
Peace.
I do not ask the media to be either objective or neutral, only that it not claim to be so when it is, in fact, partisan and biased. Many European media outlets are unabashedly partisan, and they make no claim to be otherwise. When one reads a particular French or Italian paper, one considers the facts reported in light of the political affiliation of that paper. Most people are intelligent and informed enough to make these critical judgments. Why are objectivity or neutrality characterized as virtues? Why not let us make up our own minds? In any event, nothing can be reported with pure objectivity. Even if the facts are purportedly related "straight up" without interpretation, language and style can and will be used, sometimes even unconsciously, to reflect the reporter's biases and influence the reader.
EdSki, I have to say that your posts above with Mo were just wonderful. As someone who was like you at one point – "I've never really been a conformist. I have issues with authority, and big issues with really dumb authority, so I never really bought into modern liberalism. But have no contact with conservatism or the right wing in general, I worked with what I had. And that modern liberalism and the MSM." (that's pretty much me to a "T") – I agree with your assessment of the 3 different groups of "liberals", including the fact that you can only hope to "save" the first group. The other two are hopeless.
My turn to the "light side of the Force" came differently – reading "Escape from Freedom" and watching John Stossel on 20/20. Then I said I was just a "moderate independent", until 9/11 and the aftermath – that's when I really started to become a conservative (Larry Elder and other talk show radio hosts helped along the final stretch).
Glad you are on OUR side!
Anti-Semitic much.
Troll.
Sadly, your observation is correct. Which is why the leadership of the republican party has lost so much with conservatives, and until they recognize that fact and correct it, repubs as well as conservatives are in trouble.
If the repub liberals had not insisted on foisting McCain on us as a candidate, The current state of affairs in this country might not be quite as dire.
pARODY: Authorities Defend New "Paint By Numbers" Approach to Terrorism Investigations As "So Much More Fun" Than the Old "Connect the Dots" Method http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/authorities-d...
Sorry troll, anti-Semitism is now back in the ranks of the Leftists where it always belonged.
Yeah. You're a "conservative", and I'm a toaster oven. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Why bother saying "subjective" and "objective"? Why not just say liberal and conservative and get it over with. You fool (and impress) no one.
And just what in your post do you offer as constructive criticism?
You aren't required to agree with any or everything that is said, but at least offer some viable solutions.
Not only that, many liberals run as "conservatives" to get elected. The gullability of the electorate never ceases to amaze me.
The failure of the educational system is trumpeted in the ignorance of so many of these responses. The issue of subjective "truth", as opposed to objective truth is the foundation of the difference between liberal and conservative. It is the distinction between two contradictory philosophies. Moral relativism is the mindset within which liberals function. It is the de facto philosophy of today's education Industry/academia. It forms the sum and substance of the liberal perspective, decision process, communication process. Objective truth, logic, analysis, rational thought, moral codes based on objective standards of right and wrong constitute the philosophy of the right, not to mention classical philosophy, and most Christian denominations. In antiquity, a code of justice, like the ten commandments epitomized objective morality, while today's moral relativism, with its subjective discernment of "right and wrong" is basically the primordial description of Original Sin; that notion that man can be as God, and define what behavior is good, and which is evil.
Great synopsis Evan, of liberal pretzel logic. Nonsensical horse twaddle, emanating from the incessant moral equivalence argument, that allows a person to never take responsibility for their own actions, or in the case of the press, to not faithfully report the actions of others. The story line must fit the liberal narrative. You gotta remember man …everything is relative.
Is that you, Mel?
Hey, aren't you supposed to be somewhere drinking yourself to death?
I notice you don't offer any analysis, other than to put down the article. Did you even read it? Do you realize that you just did exactly what the article and the comments said liberals do?
Wrong.
This article impressed me. It goes directly to the root causes of our present circumstances.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. It might be hard to accept, but it's absolutely true.
Does anybody remember "Rexter" he was an early anti-Semite troll on BH. Rexter is that you?
I think Rexter was before my time. There's another one on here called TonyTwoShoes, though, whose posts I've seen within the last week.
These Jew-haters are not Conservatives. They're collectivists, just like Obamao. They don't see individuals, only groups.
By the way, I'm sure you caught my reference to Mel. (Mel Gibson, kook and Jew-hater. But wait, I've become redundant, LOL.)
Touchdown, Evan. One must invent a narrative to explain moral equivalence with evil, blackwashing the good guys(whom one detests) and whitewashing the bad guys(who are killing the good guys one detests). "Balance/neutrality" means publishing Bagdad Bob without comment while our people are "Bushies".
For our media, critical thinking means criticism of all thought.
If your young friend wants to be of service to his country, I am sure other branches – Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard – would be glad to have him in their ranks, regardless of the family history.
Steve was a rabid Democrat — wanted to murder Rush Limbaugh — when I knew him in the 1990s. He then became a rabid conservative when it looked like the country was turning right. Watching the polls during the last few years of Bush and seeking to be liked, he suddenly became a radip Leftist again.
I am sorry, but it absolutely BOILS MY BLOOD to think that while we were promoting Hasan to his cushy job as a major, patriotic volunteers were turned away because of their declared sexual preference or family mental issues.
YOU CANNOT WIN UNTILL YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU MUST OVERCOME!
This is sickening.
Well Tony, I didn't know you had adopted Two Handles!
So, how does this bit of Anti-Semitism work out? How is supporting Israeli bad?
And even worse, have you ever SEEN media coverage on Israel?
If the Media IS run by Jews, it is safe to say it is run by those who despise Israel.
Wonderful. One Sentence platitudes without even the slightest attempt at supporting themselves or disproving the thesis other than stating "YOU'RE WRONG!"
I believe most of us improved on that style of Debate in Kindergarten.
Any actual EVIDENCE or ARGUMENTS?
Great Post Evan! I always look forward to your thoughts. I still tell lots of people about your heritage foundation speeches in 2007 and 2009. The closest I've ever came to understanding why liberals thinks the way they do.
http://www.eyeconshirts.com
incredible isn't it ? someof our most decorated soldiers and important contributors like translators are regularly tossed out simply because it becomes known that they are gay … while meanwhile, a guy dressed in arab garb running around screeching about the evils of america and islamic jihad is not only A-ok, but he gets transfers and promotions. what the hell is going on ?!?
You're right. In Anti-abortion killings, such as Paul Hill and of George Tiller, the clear and obvious link between the murderer and his Christian faith should be neutrally reported.
Thank you for noting that 14 were murdered. Most posts ignore that poor child.
Exactly what I will recommend to him. I may suggest that he not falsify information, but think differently about how he completes the paperwork as well.
What I really detest is the all-too-ready-to-concede reaction of the Republicans/conservatives.
Take Doug Hoffman (NY-23) for example. Sure there were about 90-something precints reporting, but thevotes were not all counted. All it took was for the DNC to start screaming "we won! We won!" and Hoffman folded like a card table. As a result- HealthCare Reform passed the House.
And McCain- that guy practically gave away the Presidency. Worst campaign ever, in my book.
Our candidates are SO ready to just give up to the Dems and I am absolutely fed up with it.
And McCain- that guy practically gave away the Presidency. Worst campaign ever, in my book.
And that's exactly why the MSM kept pushing him as the GOPs only hope. And it was amazing to watch them fall for it.
"Clear and obvious link"? Thanks for showing forth your ignorance. Christianity nowhere teaches to do such things.
We could do that, but all that does is close people's ears. The issue is not with the labels "liberal" and "conservative". The issue is with what these two worldviews represent, which is the subjective point of view versus the objective.
Or if you want to put it a different way, with unreality versus reality.
I will keep reporting you until you are removed.
You underscore a modern mental dysfunction which I call the "Myth of Equivalence". That is where everyone and every idea is equal. When the large schoolyard bully goes and picks on a little kid, they are both equally guilty of fighting and sent to the principals office. When terrorists bomb the World Trade Center and we retaliate by bombing Afghanistan, we are both equally guilty of violence. This is the pinnacle of political correctness.
How did this come about? When one considers the phrase "These nations have progressed through this sequence: "from bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." what we are witnessing now is the phase transition from apathy to dependence. The WW2 generation were the "courageous" ones who brought us "liberty". Their children (the Yuppy Baby Boomers) lived in "abundence" and then grew up to be "selfish" which taught their kids (the 20 somethings of today) to be apathetic and dependent (as evidenced by their intolerance towards radio talk shows and their blind acceptance of Obamas communist ideals).
You may be overestimating people who are insecure, defensive, guilty, superior, etc. They are compelled to become angry with conservatives or else feel they will be ostracized (as you are being ostracized). It's not personal, you are just surrounded by people who can't tolerate other pov's. Leftists are notoriously thin-skinned. You are okay.
What changed is that she feared being questioned about this friendship by others, knew she couldn't defend it because she is weak and insecure, so she absconded out of a survival instinct. Your only mistake was not seeing how fragile she really was.
There is a difference- somewhere – between leftist fruitcakes with a perverse integrity like Kucinich and Nader, and despicable Leftist fruitcakes like Maxine Waters and Cynthia McKinney.
That was kind of my point. I was quoting from above: "the clear and obvious link between the murderer and his Muslim faith."
Islam does preach murder and mayhem. That's the clear and obvious link.
Christ was a mendicant preacher, Mahomet was a brigand, warlord, mass-murderer, rapist and pedophile. See the difference?
________________________
Of course, after the Tiller murder the MSM and the rest of the Leftosphere were eager to posit a "clear and obvious link" to every conservative from Bill O'Reilly to the Boy Scouts.
I have slowly learned these things. But wow, at that time it hit me out of the blue!
It is not the true conservative politicians who are libs, but the RINO republicans who conduct themselves as such. The neo-con, or compassionate conservative, is the one ruining the name of conservative. The true conservative politicians are minimized in politics and the media, so you almost never hear of their contributions. The pendulum is swinging back to conservatism in a big way after our society has had a taste of modern liberalism, so we shall see what the future holds.
Healthcare reform passed by 5 votes, if Hoffman was elected, it would have passed by 4 votes. Yes he should have fought a bit harder, and last I heard, he may still be fighting after the fraud was discovered, so we shall see. This is Chess not Checkers, we will have our day, and the Reagan conservative movement will steamroll the liberals and their sycophants.
He is the lefts Ron Paul. Unafraid to say what is on his mind and certifiably insane.
I remember some general commenting on the shooting and how the most important thing we have to look out for is an anti-muslim backlash. The.Most.Important.Thing. That is the ruling class in the military now. A bunch of PC Nazis looking out for their own hind-end to get that next star. Don't want to play too rough with the terrorists, or they may sic the ACLU on us and I will be passed over for a promotion. Sad…
Every one, pay attention. This is a classic example of modern liberalism. Note the first line starts with an insult. The goal here is to throw the debate premise off track, and the extra insult is meant to act like electrical shock, so you don't notice. Much akin to 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?'
Then he finishes up by not addressing anything in the original story, just more insults.
Think of it as a classic bait and switch. Switch the premise of the debate from one they might not be able to back up to one they are sure they can win, and then start insulting to cover the switch.
Sun Tzu – know your enemy.
Agreed. I do keep an eye on Ron Paul. During the GOP primaries I did something I've never done before. I donated to a campaign, Paul's.
Michael Savage, is that you???
I don't think Ron Paul is nuts at all. He's one of the smartest politicians in Washington. He keeps getting reelected with out ever submitting an ear mark for his district.
He may have some strange connections, but you can't work in politics with out that happening. I doubt he'd ever get any of his significant bills passed, and his ideas are definitely radical, but that's his appeal to me.
Basically, in my opinion, he wants to go back and start following the original plan, laid out by the founding fathers, And I agree. The entire economic mess that's drubbing the economy was caused by the fed and government regulation. I say We The People should not have to suffer because the idiots in DC.
couldn't agree more…
I don't like Michael Savage, but if he thinks Liberalism is a mental disorder, he and I agree on at least one point. I listen to him for five minutes at a time, usually just long enough for him to mistake a friendly call for a critical one.
Yeah, and his ego, I think, would not even be able to fit in his studio, but he entertains me when he is not unhinging himself. That is hi srallying cry, "Liberalism is a mental disorder" also one of his book titles I believe.
FANTASTIC!!!! IT IS ABSOLUTELY DEAD ON; AND CRYSTALIZES WHAT SO MANY OF US KNOW AND FEEL BUT HAVE DIFFICULTY EXPRESSING SUCCINCTLY…. THIS IS A POWERFUL COLUMN…. YOUR CLARITY THROUGH ANALOGY HERE IS SPOT ON– EVEN LIBERALS WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT!!!
EXCELLENT, MR. SAYET KEEP IT UP…. THIS NEED TO GET POSTED AT THE "AMERICAN THINKER" AND "NRO"….. AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE NEED TO READ THIS AND HAVE THEIR EYES OPENED WIDER….
You knew me in 1991. It's what – almost two decades later?
A cheap and douchey shot, Evan – one that, even on the occasions we've disagreed via my facebook page, I've never stooped to.
Disappointing.
– Marmel
[...] Original Link. [...]
I could feel my IQ dropping as I read this. You win again Evan!
The results about Fox News echo findings of previous surveys. In 2003, University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims — that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The researchers stated, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” Fox News viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”
My goodness. Could you cite the writers and thinkers in the sixties who believed that objectivity was impossible? The "Modern Liberals" who believed this? You know, the people who believe that "rational thought is a hate crime"?
That has to be one of the more remarkably ignorant statements I've ever seen on a screen. And you were completely serious when you wrote it. Which would, by pure logical extrapolation, make you one of the more remarkably ignorant people in the world. But you would have to be. Fourteen people were brutally murdered and you complained about the way the news covered it, which was BY FAR the most important issue.
Ha!
This is right on the money.
Yes, they should. Just as the clear and obvious link between people who shoot up army bases and terrorists should be reported.
You don't even realize how much of a non-response your post is, do you?
You must be logged in to post a comment.