Thursday, December 4, 2014




A SIGN of the TIMES


Do you AGREE, or DISAGREE, and WHY?

70 comments:

  1. Pretty creepy. Do conservatives think this is funny?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Disinformation You DeserveDecember 4, 2014 at 7:23 AM

    To the leftists does “justice” means convict before the fact are in. And not in the court of law, but in the streets. Those witnesses who perjured themselves, along with those who have instigated the riots, need to be prosecuted.
    The race hustlers Rev. Sharpton, Eric. Holder, Barrack Obama and the others, like the Black Panthers decide the law, not the court or the Grand Jury.

    When the President of the United States sets the example like he has for the last 6 years, by lying, what can we expect? It's always a vast right wing conspiracy, and the Blacks are always right and the whites are always wrong....

    ReplyDelete
  3. As one who had her car stolen in 1972 (liability insurance only -- vehicle destroyed by fire after the engine was removed) and as one who has been burglarized in 2009 (gold jewelry never recovered), I admit that I'm not sympathetic toward criminals.

    Nobody deserves to have her car stolen; a vehicle is the only means for getting to work -- as was the case for me in 2009. Thank God that my parents bought me another car (aged and needing an engine rebuild, which my father and Mr. AOW did).

    Nobody deserves to have her house invaded and possessions stolen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Al Sharpton has and will always be for what’s best for Al Sharpton! He is a poor excuse of a community leader and man in general. He sooner provoke race hatred then do something to stop it. He has a extensive shady criminal past. From not filing state & federal taxes. To other more criminal activity. As far as I can see Sharpton should be held accountable if any of these 25 plus locations he is pointing to for protest turn violent and people are hurt or property is damaged! Another issue I have is way is this tax evader and race beater being welcomed at the White House for meeting with Obama? Either way Sharptongue is nothing less then a Black Panther in a fancy suit.

    And as for Bill de Blasio when you get in bed with hustlers, guess what? you are gonna get hustled....de Blasio is naive like the clown we have in the White House and people are gonna run all over him as New York starts to decline...you dumb Idiots who voted for him New Yawk, are now you getting to enjoy the consequences. And if I hear If Bill “Brain-Dead” De Blasio, mention his “Black Son” one more time, I’m going to PUKE!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As for the question posed in this blog post, my short answer is "I disagree."

    Try to take the property of another individual, and you just might lose your life.

    Protection of hearth and home is a basic right. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Disagree. He tries to rob me, he's a dead man.

    ReplyDelete

  7. That fat thug Eric Garner was morbidly obese. He had diabetes and asthma, and most likely a druggy . His fat body couldn’t take the fighting with the officer and suffered a heart attack. Nothing that the officer did was responsible for Garner's death....and he did NOT apply a "choke hold." But think about it, how else can you get a over 6 foot tall, and weighing over 400 lbs Fat Shlub like this Thug down?

    No matter what Obama and Di Blasio says he was breaking the law, again and it's amazing how his supporters are ignoring that fact

    Bottom line: When a Cop says Stop and put your hands up!!! Do It!"
    And the City of Staten Island will be a little safer today.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What is the minimum value item of property that you would kill a man to protect from robbery?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jez,
    It's not about the money.

    Have you ever been robbed? Burglarized?

    In addition, you never know if a thief will turn around kill you anyway if you meekly surrender.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There has to be some threshold, unless you want to legitimize the use of lethal force over trifling matters.

    I've been lucky, but I've had my car broken into a couple of times. I sympathise with victims, I recognise that it's a profound invasion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello, Jersey. Of course it's funny –– in the sense that parody and satire may be funny.

    If by any chance the sign was meant to be SINCERE, its incredible irony makes it funny, because of its unabashed expression of the inverted, perverted, demented, self-defeating, lack of proper values that a sad group of angry, not-very-bright people impose on themselves.

    We'd all do well to temember these sentiments first expressed (as far as I know) by Horace Walpole:

    Life is a tragedy to him who feels, but a comedy to him who thinks."

    No member of society from any race or class could fail to benefit from the wisdom embedded in that observation.

    As a society, we indulge far too much in the unbridled expression of raw emotion, see things too closely in relation to ourselves, and suffer badly from thinking too little of the needs and feelings of others, while failing to think critically of the broad ramifications of our actions and attitudes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That 300 lb cigarillo robbing gorilla got what he deserved.

    And that shriveled dick Al Sharpton and his bullhorn bolshevism wont bring him back!

    big city liberals have shit in their own nests, and now they turn and blame conservatives.

    If this anti-police bullshit keeps up, every big city cop should walk off the job. They can even twitter about it

    #Policeyourselvesyouidiots

    Then we'll see just how liberal the lily white latte leftists really are when the undocumented shoppers smash store windows and help themselves, throw little hindustani shopkeepers around like ragdolls for a packet of cigarillos, and roam the street unmolested by white klansmen disguised as police officers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello, Jez,

    I can understand why you posed that question in the wake of a couple of ferocious sounding responses, but in essence I have to agree with AOW, who understands it's not a matter of intrinsic material value but one of principle.

    If, for instance, I am standing on a platform in the London Underground -- or the New York Subway -- or on any old street corner anywhere -- the location doesn't matter -- and a suspicious looking character or set of characters suddenly accost me with mischief or malice in their eyes, my first reaction is bound to be one of fear, followed in rapid succession by anger, and loathing.

    I have no taste for violence, but I firmly believe that my house is a sacred, inviolable place belonging exclusively to me and mine. No one should have a right to enter without invitation or express permission.

    Since I am quite advanced in years, nin-athletic, and nearly blind, I doubt owning a firearm would do me much good at this stage of life, but in theory I am in complete sympathy with recent stand-your-ground laws that give homeowners carte blanche to "shoot first, and ask questions later" when it comes to intruders who may be thieves, vandals, rapists, sadistic fiends or murderers.

    In other words the responsibility for whatever brutally unpleasant events may occur lies squarely -- and ONLY -- in the lap of the perpetrators of misdeeds.

    Put bluntly: I have always been and will forever remain a fan of Bernard Goetz who was wrongfully prosecuted for defending himself by inflicting gunshot wounds on a set of thugs who surrounded him in a New York Subway car years ago.

    My outrage at his having had to serve time in jail for an act I regarded as appropriate and near-heroic at the time smolders still.

    Put another way the so-called "Liberal View" that appears to extend far more sympathy to the perpetrators of violent crimes than to the victims is in my opinion upside down, inside out, and backwards from what it ought to be.

    I'm sorry about your car, Jez, but glad that you, yourself, have, apparently, not been subjected to assault and battery. I hope it stays that way.



    ReplyDelete
  14. Shinola -- and others -- please refrain from using gratuitous vulgarity in your unfiltered expressions of hatred and disgust.

    We don't appreciate this when it comes from the Right any more than we do when it comes from the Left. And you might want to consider how self-indulgence of this kind does little but gives your ideological opponents ammunition to throw back at you.

    Thanks for your future cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. DYD, for the record I agree with most of your statement. The Professional Protest-Agitator Class has been doing its level best for many decades to subvert the Constitution, and promote anarchy by seizing any excuse to foment unwarranted civil unrest.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What is the minimum value item of property that you would kill a man to protect from robbery?

    If he has a knife/gun? $0.01

    Remember Jez, he's the one making death threats.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's your place, Mr. FreeThinke, and a right classy place at that what with the poetry and all, so I'll respect your rules, but dang it, if Revrund Al Harpson don't look like a shriveled male member, I'll eat my hat!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I second what Thersites said.

    The right to life is a fundamental one, and a right to ones own property a close second.

    A long time ago, people understood that, and generally behaved better because of it, or at least took more caution when stealing stuff, because they knew they could get their head blown off if caught, and there were no ACLU lawyers to swoop in from New York and sue the poor homeowner into the poorhouse.

    The Hebrew texts go to great lengths documenting how to repay if you accidentally harm or kill someone's animal, property or family member.

    Those same texts also say there is nothing owed to a man or his family if you kill or wound him as he is stealing from you or doing you some kind of harm.

    You can day the Hebrew religion is bunk or disbelieve God, but like holy texts of many religions, there is some basic wisdom there borne of a profound understanding of human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks for all the responses. I understand that in practise self-defence is a factor, but my question was intended philosophically, and is about finding the limits of the right to defend property alone. AoW talked about "protection of hearth and home", not protection of self.

    ReplyDelete
  20. EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDADecember 4, 2014 at 12:37 PM

    A BLACK MAN IS 20x MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY A BLACK MAN THAN BY A COP.
    IN 2012, 123 BLACKS WERE SHOT AND KILLED BY COPS.

    IN 2012 - ACCORDING TO FBI STATISTICS, 8900 PEOPLE WERE MURDERED BY FIREARMS. 2600 WERE BLACK, AND 2400 OF THEM WERE MURDERED BY BLACKS. 90% WERE MURDERED BY ANOTHER BLACK MAN.

    A BLACK MAN IS 20x MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY A BLACK MAN THAN BY A COP.

    TWICE AS MANY BLACKS ARE KILLED EACH MONTH BY OTHER BLACKS, THAN ARE KILLED BY COPS ALL YEAR.

    WHEN A BLACK MAN SEES ANOTHER BLACK MAN APPROACH HIM ON A DARK STREET, HE SHOULD CROSS THE STREET.

    3/10/96
    “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
    - Jesse Jackson
    WE CAN CERTAINLY ALWAYS IMPROVE OUR POLICE FORCES, AND SHOULD.

    •MAKING THEM AS DIVERSE AS THE COUNTY THEY SERVE IS FINE.
    •GIVING EACH COP A GO-PRO VIDEO CAMERA IS FINE.
    AND WE CAN DO THINGS TO IMPROVE OUR CONFIDENCE IN GRAND JURIES - PERHAPS HAVING SPECIAL GRAND JURIES FOR COPS UNDER INVESTIGATION IN COUNTIES WITH RACIAL TENSIONS.

    BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT "WHITE COP ON BLACK MALE" VIOLENCE.

    THE REAL PROBLEM IS BLACK-ON-BLACK VIOLENCE.

    IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO REDUCE BLACK MURDERS, THEN THE RACE-BAITERS WOULD BACK OFF THE COPS AND ADMIT THAT SERIOUSLY REDUCING BLACK MURDERS REQUIRES EXAMINING AND IMPROVING THINGS WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Man on the MoonDecember 4, 2014 at 12:44 PM

    In New York City , only 30% of the population is black or Hispanic.

    About half of them are men. But black and Hispanic men are responsible for about 75% of all arrested and 90% of all those arrested for murder/manslaughter.

    In New York City, only 30% of the population is black or Hispanic but they are 75% of the new HIV cases.

    The fact that black and Hispanic men are MORE THAN 4X as likely to commit a crime than whites is not the fault of whites any more than it's the fault of the man on the moon.

    The fact that blacks and Hispanics are more than twice as likely to get HIV than whites is not the fault of whites any more than it's the fault of the man on the moon.

    Blacks and Hispanics need to start looking at their culture and social values and their social associations for answers - and stop blaming the Police and others.

    Now hear this! black on black violence dwarfs white on black violence - especially white cop violence on blacks...


    ReplyDelete
  22. Disinformation You DeserveDecember 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM

    The rioters who destroyed the economy of Ferguson, Missouri last night, to the extent that they were not opportunistic hooligans who were simply out to enjoy a night of looting and destruction, were little more than a frustrated lynch mob that turned on its own community when deprived of the chance to execute their chosen victim.

    ReplyDelete
  23. HERE'S THE LESSON FROM FERGUSON:

    If you attack a cop after committing a theft, then he might shoot you in self-defense. And you might die.

    I THINK RACE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COP'S ACTIONS.

    Sadly, African-American culture - which has made extraordinary contributions to American culture - has for the last 20 or so years been swamped by ghetto-thug "culture" and seduced by the mass media's exploitation of pop culture's adoration of hyper-sexxxuality, thuggery, crassness, and brutality.

    And this - WHEN COUPLED WITH THE PREVALENCE OF FATHERLESS HOMES IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY- has had a terrible, negative effect on young black men.... men who are more likely to be shot by another black man than by a cop. And they are more likely to be involved in the commission of violent felonies.

    MAKING IT WORSE:

    Obama and his cohorts have fanned the flames for 6 years - often sounding more like Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton, than the POTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jez,

    Every crime against my property is an attack upon my quality of life, and by extension, my actual "future" life. You seek to deprive me of the quality of my "future" life, I am justified in defending it by depriving you of yours, up to and including every heartbeat you may potentially expend from the moment you steal from me, on. Don't like it? Then you'd better get the police to intervene, else, you "may" be a dead man. I "may" let you steal a pack of gum, or I "may not". It's totally discretionary based upon whatever "grace" I can muster at the time and how much "remorse" you attempt to demonstrate. But you should know, I can and will defend my property and future "quality of life". So if you're smart, you won't steal from me. You'll steal from a fool who doesn't care and who will let you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As I said over at Western Hero,

    Justice means to "give the other his due". Wisdom would cover giving him "more" or "less" than his due.

    I'm under no obligation to repay injustices with justice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thersites: by identifying loss of quality of life with loss of life itself, you could justify lethal retaliation for any crime, not matter how petty. Do you have any appreciation for lex talionis?

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Define the crime, then judge my response. But you haven't done that. I said "up to and including" death. Got a problem with that?

    I don't have to pre-define all my possible responses and "dollar limits". It's entirely discretionary and circumstantial.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ps - If you steal a pack of gum, and then make an agressive sign towards me when I attempt to confront you, then you just may pay the "ultimate" price.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "It's entirely discretionary and circumstantial."

    who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  31. That shouldn't surprise you. All "injustices" are.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Like I said, jez, the only way you're likely to get "eye for eye" justice is if you turn yourself in to the police. Else you get Thersites' just-is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jez, most are talking in extremes here -- as usual. I certainly have no "bloodlust" in me that renders me eager to kill on the slightest provocation, but many do.

    However, I abhor bullies and other aggressive types, and cannot say I ever wish them well.

    I think it may be safe to say that if you want to avoid getting shot, bashed up, beaten or dragged away in handcuffs to an uncertain, certainly unpleasant fate, don't commit crimes, doshow respect for law officers at all times regardless of your private feelings, and do your best to avoid even the appearance of evil, as though it were the plague.

    The responsibility for stopping violent crime lies squarely in the lap of the perpetrators. If we fail to inculcate that in our young people, it doesn't much matter what else we try to do for them.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thanks, Jack Shinola. That was funny only I think he looks a lot worse than that. The Reverend All looks like the living embodiment of BAD NEWS!

    If it's true he's been a welcome visitor at the Obama White House more than eighty times, it reflects very poorly on our president. BUT it reflects even MORE poorly on the American public who is responsible for ELECTING such a person to the highest office in the land.

    ReplyDelete
  35. But you'd be operating outside the law? I'm more interested in what people think is/should be lawful.

    Silverfiddle: do you mean Exodus 22? If so, don't think I agree with you about what it says.

    ReplyDelete
  36. But you'd be operating outside the law?

    So was the 'perp'. What's your point?

    If you want to arrest me post-facto, do it. I'll bank on the 'reasonableness' of a jury of my peers.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm more interested in what people think is/should be lawful.

    just-is v. justice. I think we covered it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jez. when the law protects felons while failing to protect law-abviding citizens it's a positive DUTY of those law-abiding citizens to "alter or abolish " -- and in exigent situations where it could be a matter of life and death -- even to BREAK the law.

    I believe that's what Emerson's famous essay in Civil Disobedience was supposed to be all about.

    I often use this famous quote, though I have no idea who originated it, "The US Constitution is Not a Suicide Pact."

    Our system of governance has been damaged I-hope-not-irreparably by Populism, Identity Politics, Pressure Groups lobbying for a largely-fabricated, ever-expanding numbers of Minority Group Grievances, and the undue influence exerted by hundreds, possibly-thousands, of different lobbyists.

    No one ever uses the term Majority Rights, because it's always been considered patently absurd, yet it is the majority here whose rights are continually being trampled and systematically diminished. It is the majority whom the liberal-progressive elites consider inherently reprehensible and thus responsible for all the inequities and injustices, real and imaginary, in which the majority's nose is being continually rubbed every hour of every day.

    Cultural Marxism, the left's wily improvement on Bolshevism, may be a relatively new, non-violent way to conquer and destroy an established society, but it is no less destructive than the bloody wars of former times.

    Instead of killing by "The Sword," Cultural Marxism snuffs out life by injecting a corrosive, slow-acting poison into the bloodstream that seeps into the internal organs and, eventually, every cell of society -- a poison that saps strength, and like paresis drives men mad, as it corrodes, and eventually paralyzes respiration from the inside out.

    This is why we on the RIght value liberty over safety, security, and "fairness" every single time.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jez:

    Here is a link that explains.

    http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-2.htm

    We don't need to argue over words like two rabbis. Passages like Exodus 22 make my point: Jewish law took human life seriously, but it nonetheless made allowances for people breaking into your home.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Elsa von Brautigam-Kaputmeisterin said

    Christ came to save us from bloodthirsty, barbaric, frankly vicious ancient Jewish law. That's why most Jews hate Jesus. He threatened their imagined supremacy. Don't forge God, Himself, referred to the Jews as a "stiff-necked people."

    ReplyDelete
  41. FreeThinke, I'm afraid you guys just can't or won't understand why so many people see the right wing the way they do. It's a shame, because it's really terrible and it's only because you guys just don't know any better.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Cram it in your ass, Mozart. And you too, McJones.

    The rightwing aren't the ones burning the country down, Jersey McJackass.

    And who cares what the phonebooth full of people who watch MSNBC believe anyway?

    Liberals are an infestation of boils on the ass of Uncle Sam. If only there were a cure.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Well, he's obviously all class. You have to give him that.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  46. Well, JMJ is right about one thing. They'd rather have smoke blown up their *sses than hear the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Stanley Stigmatawitz said

    Oy! If you think the schwarzers have it bad, you should try being a Jew. No one else has any right to complain except my people. Oy, how we suffer! Every day we live in fear of the next Holocaust. Out of purest sympathy we led the civil rights movement to help the schwarzers, and what do we get for it? Bupkis! Until there is justice for the Jews, there will be no justice in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  49. What do YOU think it is, Jersey?

    We all see "it" to a limited extent, but each from a different set of perspectives.

    I am sure of only one thing: Adding more and more fuel to the fires of antagonism is destructive and very very stupid.

    Urging others to take responsibility for their own behavior -- i.e. the way they choose to respond to crises, adversity, unpleasantness, etc. -- is not evidence of hostility, unkindness, or racial prejudice. It is just good common sense.

    Those who would urge designated "victims" to think otherwise are as evil as they are stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Silverfiddle: I'm not a qualified rabbi, but please read the first sentence of verse 3. I believe the Hebrews put limits on it. What, if any, limits do you put on it?

    Thersites: is your position on this matter any different to that of a gangland street-thug?

    FreeThinke: The law does protect law-abiding citizens -- not perfectly, it's fairly serviceable. Neither of us lives in Nairobi.

    re. majority rights, it's not an absurd concept, there's just no point campaigning for them because they are already being upheld. When honest people campaign for minority rights, they do so to correct for disadvantage. Why campaign for the groups which already enjoy advantage? Only reason I can think of is to protect those advantages.

    "it is the majority here whose rights are continually being trampled and systematically diminished"

    which would be legitimate: if you aim to equalize opportunity, then the group which currently benefits from inequality of opportunity would lose out in the process.

    "Cultural Marxism [for which I've known you to mistake an honest argument] ... is no less destructive than the bloody wars of former times."

    I was born long after world war II ended, but I wouldn't put it like that. A bombing raid is a hell of a thing. But I can see that an argument or propaganda can be more persuasive than a bomb, and in the long run more influential. The front line against propaganda is our intellectuals, whom we should cherish, yet all too often they are denigrated.

    The way to counter destructive arguments is to win the argument. Even if it were ethical to shut it down via censorship, you can't practically do that anyway.

    "This is why we on the RIght value liberty over safety, security, and "fairness" every single time."

    Very simplified. We're talking about breaking the law when it suits you -- and not just any law, the most sacred law of all, taking a life. If Rule of Law (which the Right [and many on the Left] champions if I remember correctly) has any value to you at all, then there would surely be occasions where the utility of following that principle would trump the utility of killing a man.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Who gave the original order for a sting operation (or sting operations) targeting those selling individual cigarettes on the streets of NYC?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Please read this article:
    The Role that Obama’s Runaway Bureaucracy Played in the Death of Eric Garner
    .

    Excerpt:

    ...Since 2010, that’s a crime, sayeth the unaccountable bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration....

    Please read the entire article.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Jez: Of course they put limits on it. There are many pages of midrash and Talmudic writings that greatly expand the subject. My point is that there are instances of taking a life in self-defense that are justified.

    At the time that was written, thieves did not break into homes during the day to steal; they did it at night, so that provides context for that particular verse.

    Again, I am not basing my argument about degree of use of force on the Old Testament, but using such passages as examples that ancient systems recognized the right to self-defense, even to the point of killing someone.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The truth, JMJ, is whatever makes each of us each feel more powerful. Nothing more, nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thersites: is your position on this matter any different to that of a gangland street-thug?

    Nope. But in the absence of any prospect of "justice" from the authorities, it's what the world will always revert back to. And yes, I would be happy to be godfather to your nephews in Maryland.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Silverfiddle: I'm not against killing in self defence, I know it's sometimes legitimate. I'm only surprised that no-one wants to acknowledge limits to that legitimacy. It looks like you agree with Thersites that it's OK to kill someone who tries to steal a cent from you. In such a case, I know what outcome I'd expect from a reasonable jury.

    Thersites "... in the absence of any prospect of "justice" from the authorities" your point of view would make more sense, but that's not our situation. Our legal systems are among the best in all world history, I think they deserve a touch more respect.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think they deserve a touch more respect.

    Tall that to the rioters in the streets of Ferguson, New York, et al. Oh wait, you're on their side...

    ReplyDelete
  58. I can hardly wait for the police to start wearing body camera's so that defendant's can subpoena their arresting officer's raw footage featuring candid moments and put together presentations depicting their "incompetence" for the jury to consider.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Jez, I have no doubt that you are a sincere, thoughtful person with little or no trace of hypocrisy in you. I admire that. I honestly do. The degree, however, of faith you have in systems of Law and Justice administered by remote, indifferent, often incompetent legislators, judges and armies of blind bureaucrats seems naive to me.

    Perhaps you have never been physically attacked or poorly treated by "public servants" who are anything but?

    Perhaps you have been so well conditioned by post-War, post-Modern theories that you are contented with getting far less out of life than we older folk who remember better times?

    I don't know the answer to those questions, which is why I made them questions instead of assertions, but the difference in our respective worldviews is so great it keeps us as far from one another as the east is from the west.

    I admit I have been wrong to have permitted this to make me angry and often sarcastic towards you. Hostility of that sort means I have betrayed my religion and my own basic nature which in practice is far more generous and forgiving than I may sound on these boards.

    My problem with your opinions stems from a perception that your ideas have been given to you like a neat set of rules laid down in a "handbook," and may not have come to you through insight and thinking things out for yourself after much private contemplation of trends and events.

    This would come under the heading of what psychologist Eric Ericson has termed "Good Boy Morality."

    Ericson believed this was "all right" for children and very young adults, but insufficient for the formation and development of strong individual character and a mature sense of identity and personhood.

    Making a quantum leap I go back to St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians where he effectively said perfect obedience to law, right conduct, and even the accomplishments of monumentally impressive works count for practically nothing unless they are rooted in Love.

    Our friend, C.S. Lewis, said the same thing, albeit in a different way, in one of those radio lectures you were kind enough to share with me.

    Unfortunately (from humanity's egoistic perspective) there are times when it is kind to be cruel and vice versa.

    The simplistic, literalistic view of life doesn't want to see that much less accept it.

    And so, The Dance goes on and on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I may be naive. I don't think I am, I am aware (not from too much first-hand experience, for which I am thankful) of our legal systems' shortcomings, but I think if you compare our legal systems to any of the alternatives, throughout time and all over the world, you'll find that ours score relatively highly.

    My ideas about humanity are not original I admit, but neither are they neat. I agree with Kant that humanity is crooked timber. However, I do have a fairly neat set of intellectual tools which I like to use to think about things: I like analysis. I don't think that preference is post-modern, but I must confess to my ignorance: I don't know what it is. I take that as evidence that post-modernism played at most a small part in my "conditioning."

    Furthermore, I like to understand more than one side of an argument. All too often, political proponents cannot present their opponents' views without lapsing into parody. I find that unsatisfying. It is not true that all liberals are idiots; it is not true that all conservatives are evil, and a rounded person can explain the benevolent conservatism and intelligent liberalism without resorting to caricature. I don't think one can claim to understand a dispute until he can rehearse both sides of the argument.

    What did pre-war generations enjoy that I am content to forego?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jez,
    What did pre-war generations enjoy that I am content to forego?

    Don't forget about Thomas Nast.

    Also see this about a brawl on the floor of the U.S. Congress.

    I'm sure that there are more examples.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thank you, AOW, for that most interesting material about Thomas Nast and later the chronicle of Incidents of Violent Altercations in Congress.

    Nast's story proves quite conclusively that "The Press" (called "The Media" today) always has wielded enormous power. Whether the influence of the media may be considered "undue" or not depends entirely on the point of view of the beholder, of course. ;-)

    I winder if Jez has any information he'd care to share with us about violent altercations in Parliament, and the quality and strength of influence the media has wielded in Britain's past and what it might wield today?

    I only hope, AOW, that your contributions did not leave Jez with the impression that we Conservative-Libertarians favor caustic denigration, grotesque caricature, and physical assault and battery as primary "tools" in ironing out our political differences.

    It's always both amusing and sobering to realize when we glance at history how very little we have changed.

    Fashion and Styles may give us an illusion of change, but serve only to mask the enduring baseness that motivates and characterizes too great a percentage of the human race.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Jez,

    I sense in you a lack of passion, and therefore, a lack of ability to take decisive action whenever push may come to shove. That may be a good quality or not; I admit I don't know.

    The bloodthirstiness that dominated so much of the past is certainly undesirable by my lights, but so would be a policy of surrendering immediately to every form of aggression that threatens to destroy me and the things I hold dear just to "keep the peace."

    Life is a sort of fast moving Ferris Wheel where the ride never ends until either you die of natural causes or commit suicide. Many would like to get off the ride and try something different, but that Alas! seems impossible. Like or not we are swept into the Whirlpool of ever-changing Events and Circumstances. If not a whirlpool it is certainly a roulette wheel. Perhaps perpetual dizziness and a rising sense of panic are inescapable no matter what we think or try to accomplish?

    At any rate what you and I may regard as caricature, others are bound to see as absolute truth, and that is precisely why the "wheel" never stops spinning.

    I hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Not sure what AoW means. Does she cite Nast because she feels I under-appreciate caricature? And what of the congressional fisticuffs? Am I content to forego violence in politics? Yes, but we never had much of that in our parliament. Of the two outbursts listed in wikipedia, I have sympathy for the first in 1972, over Bloody Sunday. (I daresay there was more violence in the royal court pre-19th century.)

    "I sense in you a lack of passion,"

    But what would be the point of wasting passion over the internet?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Jez,
    My intent in posting those links was as FT stated:

    It's always both amusing and sobering to realize when we glance at history how very little we have changed.

    I was not being snarky, Jez.

    I'm sure that if we made good use of Google search, we could find examples of fisticuffs, etc., throughout politics going all the way back to ancient days.

    It has always been my view that political differences bring out the worst in people.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose."

    ReplyDelete
  67. AoW: ah, I get it. I didn't think you were being snarky, by the way, I just didn't know what you were driving at. :)

    ReplyDelete
  68. FYI For those humorless and petty minded enough to care about such things:

    We Knew the Sign was Photoshopped All Along.

    It HAD to have been.


    That takes nothing away from its essential truth or trenchant satirical wit.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.