March 18, 2008
My Brother's Keeper?
This is a major pet peeve with me. Let us see the latest misrepresentation of this phrase from one of our wonderful politicians:
GAH!
The phrase "my brother's keeper" exists in one place and one place only in the Bible. It's in Genesis:
Jesus never used the phrase. It doesn't appear anywhere else in the Bible, and the word "keeper" doesn't even appear in the New Testament in the New International Version. The King James version uses the word 'keeper' for 'guard' and so it shows up there, but not in this context and certainly not in the context of a sermon that we should be "our brother's keepers".
This disgusting perversion of meaning by religious illiterates pretending to be men of deep and abiding faith really chaps my unmentionables. And yes, I'm talking about Obama here, but he's hardly the first politician to pull this crap. I imagine it is more common on the Left since they are always looking for another excuse to steal from us, but I'm sure some RINO has done it too.
Just stop it, it bugs me.
"In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less,
than what all the world's great religions demand -- that we do unto
others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's
keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper."
GAH!
The phrase "my brother's keeper" exists in one place and one place only in the Bible. It's in Genesis:
"And Cain talked with Abel
his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that
Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."
Wha't going on here? Cain is lying to God. He knows damn well where his brother is and he's lying about it. To God. This has always been fascinating to me and speaks to what I consider to be a huge problem on the Left today (the "reality based community" my foot).
Jesus never used the phrase. It doesn't appear anywhere else in the Bible, and the word "keeper" doesn't even appear in the New Testament in the New International Version. The King James version uses the word 'keeper' for 'guard' and so it shows up there, but not in this context and certainly not in the context of a sermon that we should be "our brother's keepers".
This disgusting perversion of meaning by religious illiterates pretending to be men of deep and abiding faith really chaps my unmentionables. And yes, I'm talking about Obama here, but he's hardly the first politician to pull this crap. I imagine it is more common on the Left since they are always looking for another excuse to steal from us, but I'm sure some RINO has done it too.
Just stop it, it bugs me.
Posted by: l4n3 at
06:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.
Obama's excuses
And that's what this speech today was really about, excusing the racism of his friend and spiritual guide.
Actually, no we must not. Every racist has an excuse, everyone has a story. From firefighters and cops in the inner cities of this country, to crime victims of one stripe or another, all of us have excuses to slide into racism. And all of us are wrong when we do, even black people.
There is no excuse for racism, if you want a nation where people are judged by the Content of Their Character; you can't stand in front of a room full of people saying whitey is trying to exterminate you, even if you had to sit in the back of the bus when you were a kid, even if you were beaten by the Klan.
If all the white victims of black criminals were allowed to become racist, then where would we be? If we didn't care about David Duke's life history (and we didn't and we shouldn't have), then why the hell do I care about Reverend Whyte's?
I don't. And I hope no one else does either.
This was a shallow and sad attempt to brush over the real problem of his racist reverend and the even bigger problem of the racist ideology that feeds him and his followers. Yes I know the pronouns in that sentence have ambiguous antecedents, and I kind of like it that way. Because that's the question now, how much of this racism does Obama actually believe?
He disavows in general the horrible things his pastor says, but not specifically. Maybe Obama doesn't think his pastor should say Whitey is spreading AIDS in the Black community. Why not specifically disavow that statement? Why not say, "The CIA did not introduce crack into the inner cities of America to poison Black youths." Nope. It's "his controversial statements are wrong and divisive." Which are controversial? It's left to the listener to decide. Which are disavowed? Again, nothing specific, you decide which are controversial and therefore which are wrong. If you believe Rev. Wright, then his thoughts on AIDS and crack and "chickens coming home to roost" are not controversial and not disowned.
Will this open a debate on Black Liberation Theology and how much of that Racist Ideology Obama believes in? I hope so, but I don't think that was the point. The point was to bury it, say the Black man has grievances so you should excuse his racism, and electing Obama is the only way to prove you aren't racist.
Color me disgusted.
Also, pop on over to protein wisdom and read this .
Oh, those things he said are wrong and divisive, but you must understand WHY he said them...
Actually, no we must not. Every racist has an excuse, everyone has a story. From firefighters and cops in the inner cities of this country, to crime victims of one stripe or another, all of us have excuses to slide into racism. And all of us are wrong when we do, even black people.
There is no excuse for racism, if you want a nation where people are judged by the Content of Their Character; you can't stand in front of a room full of people saying whitey is trying to exterminate you, even if you had to sit in the back of the bus when you were a kid, even if you were beaten by the Klan.
If all the white victims of black criminals were allowed to become racist, then where would we be? If we didn't care about David Duke's life history (and we didn't and we shouldn't have), then why the hell do I care about Reverend Whyte's?
I don't. And I hope no one else does either.
This was a shallow and sad attempt to brush over the real problem of his racist reverend and the even bigger problem of the racist ideology that feeds him and his followers. Yes I know the pronouns in that sentence have ambiguous antecedents, and I kind of like it that way. Because that's the question now, how much of this racism does Obama actually believe?
He disavows in general the horrible things his pastor says, but not specifically. Maybe Obama doesn't think his pastor should say Whitey is spreading AIDS in the Black community. Why not specifically disavow that statement? Why not say, "The CIA did not introduce crack into the inner cities of America to poison Black youths." Nope. It's "his controversial statements are wrong and divisive." Which are controversial? It's left to the listener to decide. Which are disavowed? Again, nothing specific, you decide which are controversial and therefore which are wrong. If you believe Rev. Wright, then his thoughts on AIDS and crack and "chickens coming home to roost" are not controversial and not disowned.
Will this open a debate on Black Liberation Theology and how much of that Racist Ideology Obama believes in? I hope so, but I don't think that was the point. The point was to bury it, say the Black man has grievances so you should excuse his racism, and electing Obama is the only way to prove you aren't racist.
Color me disgusted.
Also, pop on over to protein wisdom and read this .
Posted by: l4n3 at
06:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.
January 30, 2008
Perhaps Florida should have been expected
Just a thought, but perhaps without a Democratic primary to draw them away, the Hispanic vote came out in droves for McCain, thus handing him his margin and messing with polls that thought fewer Hispanics would be represented in the Republican primary.
But, I think this is the last state where the Dems are sitting out over their timing spat. If that's the case, McCain's Hispanic bump will be smaller in upcoming tests, especially those across the South-West where Obama and Hillary will be courting them desperately.
Don't panic yet, Romneyans. This could just be an anomaly of the calendar.
But, I think this is the last state where the Dems are sitting out over their timing spat. If that's the case, McCain's Hispanic bump will be smaller in upcoming tests, especially those across the South-West where Obama and Hillary will be courting them desperately.
Don't panic yet, Romneyans. This could just be an anomaly of the calendar.
Posted by: l4n3 at
09:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.
January 14, 2008
Yes, I've been away
Honestly, I needed a break. Not from blogging, I'd done little enough of that, but from the whole blogosphere/politics world. I felt it and myself getting too small, too petty over things that are large, very large (we are at war).
So I took a break. I got married, I went to Europe. I had a grand old time, and now I've returned to find it as small and annoying as it was when I left.
What's changed? When I walked away last summer, only us crazy right-wingers believed that "The Surge" was working or could possibly work. Now everyone admits it's working and Hillary! is taking credit for it.
Last summer, a huge public outcry killed a ridiculous immigration bill and made it clear that amnesty without security first was a non-starter for all Americans. Now, everyone is still talking tough, but the Straight Talk Express and all the candidates on the left are still trying to legalize all the people here without truly stopping more from coming across.
It's funny. No one can doubt that Americans want the border secured. They've made that perfectly clear to the politicos. Will the elected secure the border? Or will they hold the status quo until people aren't looking anymore and then backdoor all the illegals? An interesting test for "democracy".
The economy continues to chug along despite the mortgage bomb, but the media plays it like we're in the second Great Depression in an attempt to help the Democratic electoral chances. Just keep talking about that recession and we'll have one soon.
Me, I've done my part for the economy, a wedding, a honeymoon and then Christmas; I've spent my share and then some.
So, I'm back and I'll try to do what I can to raise the level of discourse in my own little corner of the blog-world, but it is an election year and stupidity is flying from all corners.
When three candidates are playing fast and loose with Race (or being played by it), it's mud wrestling and no mistake.
So I took a break. I got married, I went to Europe. I had a grand old time, and now I've returned to find it as small and annoying as it was when I left.
What's changed? When I walked away last summer, only us crazy right-wingers believed that "The Surge" was working or could possibly work. Now everyone admits it's working and Hillary! is taking credit for it.
Last summer, a huge public outcry killed a ridiculous immigration bill and made it clear that amnesty without security first was a non-starter for all Americans. Now, everyone is still talking tough, but the Straight Talk Express and all the candidates on the left are still trying to legalize all the people here without truly stopping more from coming across.
It's funny. No one can doubt that Americans want the border secured. They've made that perfectly clear to the politicos. Will the elected secure the border? Or will they hold the status quo until people aren't looking anymore and then backdoor all the illegals? An interesting test for "democracy".
The economy continues to chug along despite the mortgage bomb, but the media plays it like we're in the second Great Depression in an attempt to help the Democratic electoral chances. Just keep talking about that recession and we'll have one soon.
Me, I've done my part for the economy, a wedding, a honeymoon and then Christmas; I've spent my share and then some.
So, I'm back and I'll try to do what I can to raise the level of discourse in my own little corner of the blog-world, but it is an election year and stupidity is flying from all corners.
When three candidates are playing fast and loose with Race (or being played by it), it's mud wrestling and no mistake.
Posted by: l4n3 at
06:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.
Browbeating the Press
See here Via Protein Wisdom
The long and the short of it is that the Hillary! campaign assaults the press and threatens them by withholding access if they publish anything remotely negative about our sainted, former first lady.
Kind of reminds me of the deal CNN struck to maintain "access" to Iraq. You can stay here and report, just don't say anything bad, or you have to leave.
Explain to me please what a reporter is doing if he is covering up instead of covering a politician?
And why oh why are they giving into this? If Hillary! kicks a reporter off the bus for publishing something true and negative, all the other reporters should just keep beating on that story until the reporter in question is permitted back. Every question in every presser should be "Where's Mr. Jones from the Jones Review?" until that reporter is brought back.
The press is always telling us how professional they are, and they certainly can act like a medieval guild when they want to, why not now?
Someone might infer that they like being nothing more than an arm of the Clinton press office, that they have goals somehow aligned with the Clinton campaign. But that can't be, can it?
The long and the short of it is that the Hillary! campaign assaults the press and threatens them by withholding access if they publish anything remotely negative about our sainted, former first lady.
Kind of reminds me of the deal CNN struck to maintain "access" to Iraq. You can stay here and report, just don't say anything bad, or you have to leave.
Explain to me please what a reporter is doing if he is covering up instead of covering a politician?
And why oh why are they giving into this? If Hillary! kicks a reporter off the bus for publishing something true and negative, all the other reporters should just keep beating on that story until the reporter in question is permitted back. Every question in every presser should be "Where's Mr. Jones from the Jones Review?" until that reporter is brought back.
The press is always telling us how professional they are, and they certainly can act like a medieval guild when they want to, why not now?
Someone might infer that they like being nothing more than an arm of the Clinton press office, that they have goals somehow aligned with the Clinton campaign. But that can't be, can it?
Posted by: l4n3 at
06:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.
June 07, 2007
Better said
I don't like the way I wrote part of the last post, here's the same thing only better...
It's funny of course, when Senators get up to speak about this bill (I've been watching the "debate" on CSPAN) they go on and on about the tough border provisions and the strict employment provisions and how tough this bill is. Why is Diane Feinstein going on and on about how tough this bill is on Illegals (lies though her and her colleague's statements may be)? Could it be that even she understands that all Americans want is enforcement, all we want is a secure border? And after we get that we'll be willing to talk about guest workers and what to do with the millions of people living in those darn shadows?
If even a space cadet from the Bay Area knows what the American people want, why can't we get it?
It's funny of course, when Senators get up to speak about this bill (I've been watching the "debate" on CSPAN) they go on and on about the tough border provisions and the strict employment provisions and how tough this bill is. Why is Diane Feinstein going on and on about how tough this bill is on Illegals (lies though her and her colleague's statements may be)? Could it be that even she understands that all Americans want is enforcement, all we want is a secure border? And after we get that we'll be willing to talk about guest workers and what to do with the millions of people living in those darn shadows?
If even a space cadet from the Bay Area knows what the American people want, why can't we get it?
Posted by: l4n3 at
08:35 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
Immigration Lies
I'm just watching the debate on the failed immigration bill and I'm really amazed at the lies pouring out of the Senator's mouths.
Amazed and informed. Diane Feinstein has been lying about the bill for 10 minutes. That elected officials are lying is not news, it's how they're lying.
What are they saying? Is Dirty Diane saying that this bill will make illegals legal? Is she saying that this bill helps keep families together?
No. Diane Feinstein is talking tough about how this bill enforces our border (a lie). She's going on and on about how tough this bill is on the illegal immigrant, how strong it is on getting employers to check on their employees (a lie). She positively glows when talking about how this bill forces illegal immigrants to work for eight years (another lie).
Why is Diane Feinstein, from a safe Democratic seat, mouthing Conservative talking points? Could it be even she knows that the vast majority of this country wants strong border enforcement, wants strong employer enforcement, wants the illegals OUT!?
Just sayin'...
more...
Amazed and informed. Diane Feinstein has been lying about the bill for 10 minutes. That elected officials are lying is not news, it's how they're lying.
What are they saying? Is Dirty Diane saying that this bill will make illegals legal? Is she saying that this bill helps keep families together?
No. Diane Feinstein is talking tough about how this bill enforces our border (a lie). She's going on and on about how tough this bill is on the illegal immigrant, how strong it is on getting employers to check on their employees (a lie). She positively glows when talking about how this bill forces illegal immigrants to work for eight years (another lie).
Why is Diane Feinstein, from a safe Democratic seat, mouthing Conservative talking points? Could it be even she knows that the vast majority of this country wants strong border enforcement, wants strong employer enforcement, wants the illegals OUT!?
Just sayin'...
more...
Posted by: l4n3 at
07:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
April 18, 2007
VT Voyeurism, part III
Just some odds and ends.
I do not support gun control, and I am somewhat sympathetic to those calling attention to the concealed carry debate that took place at VT over the past year or so. The administration came down hard on a kid with a legal concealed carry permit who had a gun on campus. The state legislature tried to pass a law allowing students to carry on campus regardless of the Admin's preferences and the university folks condescendingly attacked it. Then they condescendingly attacked any opposition from the campus itself.
The idea that the police can protect you from these kinds of things is ridiculous. The State is a large, unwieldy, blunt instrument. The restrictions on personal freedom necessary to "make us safe" are abhorrent to all freedom loving people. Concealed carry by law-abiding citizens does work, all condescending leftist opinion notwithstanding.
That's not to say I want a dorm-full of 18-20 year old males, sometimes drunk, always trying to impress the ladies, running around with firearms. But a reasonable compromise (no guns in the dorms, duh) seems something worth discussing.
- Ace is calling Mark Steyn to task because Steyn seems to be calling the students less than manly for not fighting back. It is too early to tell what happened, whether or not anyone "fought back". Rumors of people being lined up against the wall and shot are just that at this point, so let's not rush to judgment either way.
I would like to point out something I remember though. When Schindler's List came out I remember distinctly a conversation I had on more than one occasion (although I think I only started it once). The gist was Americans would not stand still and be lined up like animals to be shot by the Nazis. Let alone stand in line to save the Nazis bullets. We would fight back, every inch would be a slaughter, but nobody would be standing there or kneeling down to get shot.
This view of Americans was strongly reinforced by the story of Flight 93. Americans, knowing death was coming, were going to fight to the last breath rather than go calmly to their graves especially if by doing so they could save others. Remember the Alamo.
We don't yet know what happened, and even if people were lined up, maybe they didn't know what was coming, maybe it was the first room the killer entered into and people thought cooperation would minimize death. We don't know.
But, abstractly, contra Ace, we can and indeed we must expect heroism from everyone. It is hard, it is rare, but it must be expected. We must tell our sons and daughters that fighting against evil is what is expected of us and any other course is unacceptable. Cowardly.
Hero - Coward. There is no middle ground.
Why? Why do we tell them never to lie, even though we know everyone lies at some point?
One holds up an ideal knowing the ideal is unreachable, no one is or can be perfect. But the ideal must be there, giving us something to strive for, ultimately to fall short of, but to strive for again, and again.
No man is the knight in shining armor, but every man must want to be, imagine himself to be, not as some Walter Mitty fantasy, but as armor for himself for that time, that situation when he may be called upon to rescue himself, or someone he loves, or a stranger sharing a geology course.
The possibility of the noble, the heroic is what has been under attack in our mass media for too long. We must fight back, even at the cost of our lives.
That does not mean that I know I would fight back, it does mean that I hope I would. And it acknowledges the fact that, fair or not, we do look down our noses at people who don't. And we should.
I do not support gun control, and I am somewhat sympathetic to those calling attention to the concealed carry debate that took place at VT over the past year or so. The administration came down hard on a kid with a legal concealed carry permit who had a gun on campus. The state legislature tried to pass a law allowing students to carry on campus regardless of the Admin's preferences and the university folks condescendingly attacked it. Then they condescendingly attacked any opposition from the campus itself.
The idea that the police can protect you from these kinds of things is ridiculous. The State is a large, unwieldy, blunt instrument. The restrictions on personal freedom necessary to "make us safe" are abhorrent to all freedom loving people. Concealed carry by law-abiding citizens does work, all condescending leftist opinion notwithstanding.
That's not to say I want a dorm-full of 18-20 year old males, sometimes drunk, always trying to impress the ladies, running around with firearms. But a reasonable compromise (no guns in the dorms, duh) seems something worth discussing.
- Ace is calling Mark Steyn to task because Steyn seems to be calling the students less than manly for not fighting back. It is too early to tell what happened, whether or not anyone "fought back". Rumors of people being lined up against the wall and shot are just that at this point, so let's not rush to judgment either way.
I would like to point out something I remember though. When Schindler's List came out I remember distinctly a conversation I had on more than one occasion (although I think I only started it once). The gist was Americans would not stand still and be lined up like animals to be shot by the Nazis. Let alone stand in line to save the Nazis bullets. We would fight back, every inch would be a slaughter, but nobody would be standing there or kneeling down to get shot.
This view of Americans was strongly reinforced by the story of Flight 93. Americans, knowing death was coming, were going to fight to the last breath rather than go calmly to their graves especially if by doing so they could save others. Remember the Alamo.
We don't yet know what happened, and even if people were lined up, maybe they didn't know what was coming, maybe it was the first room the killer entered into and people thought cooperation would minimize death. We don't know.
But, abstractly, contra Ace, we can and indeed we must expect heroism from everyone. It is hard, it is rare, but it must be expected. We must tell our sons and daughters that fighting against evil is what is expected of us and any other course is unacceptable. Cowardly.
Hero - Coward. There is no middle ground.
Why? Why do we tell them never to lie, even though we know everyone lies at some point?
One holds up an ideal knowing the ideal is unreachable, no one is or can be perfect. But the ideal must be there, giving us something to strive for, ultimately to fall short of, but to strive for again, and again.
No man is the knight in shining armor, but every man must want to be, imagine himself to be, not as some Walter Mitty fantasy, but as armor for himself for that time, that situation when he may be called upon to rescue himself, or someone he loves, or a stranger sharing a geology course.
The possibility of the noble, the heroic is what has been under attack in our mass media for too long. We must fight back, even at the cost of our lives.
That does not mean that I know I would fight back, it does mean that I hope I would. And it acknowledges the fact that, fair or not, we do look down our noses at people who don't. And we should.
Posted by: l4n3 at
03:22 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 664 words, total size 4 kb.
VT Voyeurism, part II
The thing is, I am interested in the killer. I want to see the mysterious letter he may or may not have written (news accounts differ on this right now).
Why the difference? I don't care about the victims but want any info I can get on the perpetrator, why?
I imagine because in my mind I already know the victims. They are like me, they are (passably) normal. They've read some books I like, some I hate. They watch TV and movies and go to class and drink and sometimes skip class because they've been drinking.
They are like us.
He isn't. Our killer here is the other and I want to see who he was.
All the blame-casting that is going on is misdirected. It wasn't the administration's fault, and it wasn't the guns' fault. It certainly wasn't gun control laws or lack thereof that caused this catastrophe. It was the fault of one crazy person.
So why was he crazy, what kind of crazy was he? What Ideas helped to form his world and reinforce his crazy?
That's what interests me. I know the victims, even though I never knew them. They are us. I want to know our enemy so I can fight him.
Why the difference? I don't care about the victims but want any info I can get on the perpetrator, why?
I imagine because in my mind I already know the victims. They are like me, they are (passably) normal. They've read some books I like, some I hate. They watch TV and movies and go to class and drink and sometimes skip class because they've been drinking.
They are like us.
He isn't. Our killer here is the other and I want to see who he was.
All the blame-casting that is going on is misdirected. It wasn't the administration's fault, and it wasn't the guns' fault. It certainly wasn't gun control laws or lack thereof that caused this catastrophe. It was the fault of one crazy person.
So why was he crazy, what kind of crazy was he? What Ideas helped to form his world and reinforce his crazy?
That's what interests me. I know the victims, even though I never knew them. They are us. I want to know our enemy so I can fight him.
Posted by: l4n3 at
02:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.
VT Voyeurism
The NYTimes has posted links to the myspace pages and facebook entries of VT victims. A friend asks me if I think looking is voyeuristic...
my initial response:
Well, voyeuristic for sure. But I'm not judging you
I don't know. I have no interest in it. I know they were all real people and that it's horrible they were killed, but I did not know them in life, getting to know them in death seems artificial.
Do we get to know them so we can better grieve them? Do we not have enough real grief in our lives without seeking enhancements from tragedies like these? Is it a way of cutting through the fluff of our lives or adding another
layer?
As Adam Smith points out, I can hear about the deaths of a hundred thousand in China, be deeply moved and then sleep more soundly than if I had slammed my pinkie in the car door.
Does it make it more real to "know them"? Does it need to be more real?
This is all just off the top of my head. I know the NYT did a similar thing with victims of the 9/11 attacks. Done in the name of remembrance. I was ambivalent to that too.
Don't know that I'm right or wrong on this one, just how I feel...
my initial response:
Well, voyeuristic for sure. But I'm not judging you
I don't know. I have no interest in it. I know they were all real people and that it's horrible they were killed, but I did not know them in life, getting to know them in death seems artificial.
Do we get to know them so we can better grieve them? Do we not have enough real grief in our lives without seeking enhancements from tragedies like these? Is it a way of cutting through the fluff of our lives or adding another
layer?
As Adam Smith points out, I can hear about the deaths of a hundred thousand in China, be deeply moved and then sleep more soundly than if I had slammed my pinkie in the car door.
Does it make it more real to "know them"? Does it need to be more real?
This is all just off the top of my head. I know the NYT did a similar thing with victims of the 9/11 attacks. Done in the name of remembrance. I was ambivalent to that too.
Don't know that I'm right or wrong on this one, just how I feel...
Posted by: l4n3 at
02:40 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.
April 16, 2007
PYSK
The "People You Should Know" category (in the right side bar) is a list of academics, authors and old-school men of letters that are important to me. They have been part of an academic tradition on the right that has been largely ignored in the "popular" culture.
That's one of my pet peeves. Today in America, and around the world, the vernacular of Leftists Criticism is constant. It is the sea we swim in whether we like it or not. In college you learn everything you could ever want to know about Marx and more than you can stand of the Left Hegelians and the Right Hegelians and the Frankfurt School and the Postmodernists. (Right now your're thinking you didn't, but trust me, they got to you, unless you were an engineer, in which case you were too busy).
Industrialism, Imperialism, Exploitation, Alienation and the rest of it. Blah.
Quick, why are the poor, poor? The Man, the system, the inherent inequalities of the Capitalist system, right? You may not believe it, but you know the spiel.
Those assumptions underlay our entire popular culture. When was the last time you saw a good industrialist in a movie? A heroic banker?
The acceptance of the Leftist critique wouldn't chafe me quite as much if it wasn't based on ignorance of the Conservative defense. Most of the loudest Leftists in this country don't have the slightest clue who the PYSK people are, excepting C.S.Lewis, known for his fiction, not his academic and (broadly) Christian work.
I'll be referencing, and hopefully expanding upon a lot of the authors in that list from time to time, so do us all a favor and read them.
And I mean read the things they've written, not just the wikipedia page. I've linked wikipedia for now, but as I find better homepages for them or do write ups here I'll change that...
That's one of my pet peeves. Today in America, and around the world, the vernacular of Leftists Criticism is constant. It is the sea we swim in whether we like it or not. In college you learn everything you could ever want to know about Marx and more than you can stand of the Left Hegelians and the Right Hegelians and the Frankfurt School and the Postmodernists. (Right now your're thinking you didn't, but trust me, they got to you, unless you were an engineer, in which case you were too busy).
Industrialism, Imperialism, Exploitation, Alienation and the rest of it. Blah.
Quick, why are the poor, poor? The Man, the system, the inherent inequalities of the Capitalist system, right? You may not believe it, but you know the spiel.
Those assumptions underlay our entire popular culture. When was the last time you saw a good industrialist in a movie? A heroic banker?
The acceptance of the Leftist critique wouldn't chafe me quite as much if it wasn't based on ignorance of the Conservative defense. Most of the loudest Leftists in this country don't have the slightest clue who the PYSK people are, excepting C.S.Lewis, known for his fiction, not his academic and (broadly) Christian work.
I'll be referencing, and hopefully expanding upon a lot of the authors in that list from time to time, so do us all a favor and read them.
And I mean read the things they've written, not just the wikipedia page. I've linked wikipedia for now, but as I find better homepages for them or do write ups here I'll change that...
Posted by: l4n3 at
06:38 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
The thing about blogging is
You actually have to do it. Imagine my surprise when I returned to my blog to discover nothing had been added to it...
Posted by: l4n3 at
06:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
April 10, 2007
First Post Evah!
Why "longwinded"? Because I am and I can go on and on, about anything; politics, philosophy, sports, food, alcohol, whatever, on and on and on. Will try posting something real in the next few days, but in the mean time it will be silly little things and beta-tests...
Posted by: l4n3 at
06:48 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
37kb generated in CPU 0.025, elapsed 0.0513 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0324 seconds, 76 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0324 seconds, 76 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
