Favorite responses from the Web

On this post I will constantly be putting comments put in by readers on other blogs that I think are as good as the articles, or which contain some small bit of information or wisdom that are useful. I will mention the source article but obscure the name of the poster here. These are not MY original thoughts but things that I thought were worth saving or passing on. It will become obvious that I think some of the smartest responders are on Pajamas Media's articles, especially those by Victor Davis Hanson. How different these are than the trolls who throw out an insult or other and run away. I think VDH scares them away with big words. Anyway, check these out...
-----------------------------------------------------
On Dec 11 2013 a commenter named Polybius said this about "income inequality"

To counter the 'income inequality' fallacy, two points need to be shouted from the rooftops:

1.  The natural economic state of any human society is universal poverty. It is false to ask why so many Americans live in poverty. Poverty is the natural, common state of all people, in all places, at all times. Instead, the correct question is to ask why so many Americans are able to escape poverty.

2. Just as there is bad cholesterol and good cholesterol, there is bad income inequality and good income inequality. Bad income inequality is income and wealth generated by the exercise of power and influence to game the economic, social and political system to one's economic favor. Income derived from corruption, lobbying, favorable legislative and regulatory drafting, political bailouts and industrial regulatory capture are all examples of bad income inequality. They are examples of people unfairly manipulating the system to protect and build their wealth at the expense of others.

Good income inequality is income and wealth derived from hard work, talent, innovation, more than a little luck and the ability to provide people (consumers) with goods and services that people want at a price people are willing to pay. In short, good income inequality derives from actual wealth CREATION, rather than the taking of wealth from others.
If we were talking about corn inequality, would we vilify the farmer for having so much more corn than anybody else? Of course not! He has more corn because he grew it! 'Thank you, Mr. Farmer, for growing corn for the rest of us.'

If we were talking about car inequality, would we vilify the car manufacturer for having so many more cars than the rest of us? Of course not! The manufacturer has more because it built more. 'Thank you, Mr. Car Manufacturer, for building these cars for the rest of us.'

If we were talking about regulatory inequality, would we vilify a company that can afford contributions to politicians sufficient to ensure regulation in favor of itself over its competitors? Of course! The company has more wealth because it has manipulated the system in favor of itself, while harming its competitors and, ultimately, the consumers who cannot benefit from the fair competition. 'Down with you, foul company, and the politicians in your pocket!'
If I was in the position of someone like Newt Gingrich, with a voice that could carry to the American people, I would say, "Yes, I'm in favor of income inequality. That is to say, I'm in favor of good income inequality. And I oppose bad income inequality with every fiber of my being". Embrace the narrative that liberals want to impose on free-marketers, and turn it around on them. Narrative Judo.

-----------------------------------------------------
Someone posted this list of statements made by Democrats about Saddam Hussein before Bush actually did something about it and they switched to "Bush Lied, Kids Died". Hypocrites....

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding to The Teen Workplace Disengagement Epidemic
September 17, 2010 - by Tom Blumer

In the Weather Underground Manifesto they discuss keeping the youth unemployed as a strategy to overturn the gov’t. Looks like Obummer knows the Manifesto well as he’s chummy with so many Underground and SDS radicals. (Ayres, Dorhn, A Stein,Jeff Jones etc) - E

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding to Keith Olbermann, Sexist
Sep 16th 2010 - by Frank Ross

True story about Keith Olberman- I live a few blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood, and on Sept 11, 2001 I watched the attacks from beginning to end. From my roof I watched the worst things one can imagine - many people jumping to their deaths and the eventual collapse of those buildings. To see it firsthand I can tell you that TV did not do it justice.

The police and FBI evacuated my building and the entire area for several days. I was allowed back on Saturday September 15, 2001. That day I walked to Greenwich street, a few blocks from my home, because you could see directly down the street to the smoldering buildings' remains. I noticed standing there was Keith Olberman speaking into a tape recorder. So I went over, said hello, and asked if he was reporting for TV. He said at that time he was reporting for a few radio stations on the West Coast, I believe, and that he hadn't been on TV for a while.

At that point a bunch of other people had recognized him and were standing around him with me. I then asked him what he thought of this whole thing. He said

"Well, there was one good thing to come out of it. Barbara Olsen was on the plane flown into the Pentagon, and that b*tch got what she deserved." We were all shocked and there was a collective moan from the other people. I said excuse me. He repeated "That b*tch Barbara Olsen got what she deserved."

I wanted to slug him and said to him that was way out of line.

That is the Keith Olberman NBC hired. - bw

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding to "‘Like a Dog’: The Origins of Barack Obama’s Petulance"
September 8, 2010 - by Victor Davis Hanson

Dear Dr. Hanson:

Thanks for a particularly insightful article. Most impressive. May I add just a few additional ideas?

Those of us who work for a living, who have actually spent a lifetime in the world where, each and every day, reliability, accomplishment, dedication, industry, practicality and honor matter know that one of the primary indicators of character–or lack thereof–is whether a man is humble or self aggrandizing. Will he allow his work to speak for itself, or must he heap undeserved honors on himself, or allow others to do it for him, refusing to correct their misconceptions?

Two examples: Mr. Obama has, as far as I can remember, allowed others to call him a “constitutional law professor.” I know that he has often said that he has taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, but I am not certain that he has claimed professorship, so I’ll not attribute that to him. The problem is that he was never a professor, the highest academic, teaching rank in any university. He was merely an adjunct lecturer, and by all accounts, a lecturer for a position invented just for him to advance his political fortunes. He had no qualifications for such a post that outstripped those of any other law school graduate. In academia, if one is not a professor, one does not claim to be a professor, nor does one allow others to create or hold that misconception. It is not only bad manners, it is revealing of a serious character flaw. The second, previously mentioned here, is the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize committee admitted that Mr. Obama had done nothing to deserve it. Mr. Obama admitted that he had done nothing to deserve it, yet he accepted it anyway, debasing himself, and the Prize for a very long time. Perhaps the best commentary I saw on this topic was posted on a restaurant’s sign: “Free Nobel Peace Prize with Shrimp Taco.”

Who then is Mr. Obama and why is he befuddled? i’ve said it before: He’s a con man, a con man who forgot the prime directive of con men–make the con and run before the marks know what hit them. Never hang around too long. The worst sort of hubris to which the con man is subject is falling for his own cons, believing that he is invulnerable, that he is actually what he fools others into believing he is. After so many years of living with ever changing lies, of manipulative, shallow relationships, of always coming out on top without any real, honest labor involved, of believing the world to be populated with two types of people: Marks and you, it’s easy to believe your own hype. When one has the entire national media calling you a God, when women–in the media and out–talk of their sexual fantasies revolving around your glory, when you lecture in front of faux Greek columns behind your faux pre-presidential seal, emanating from the extra-constitutional, non-existant Office of The President-Elect, and every vapid, cliched, meaningless syllable you utter is met with rapturous applause and adulation and is said to surpass the Gettysburg Address, is it any wonder the demi-god con man might begin to lose himself utterly.

And so Mr. Obama is in unfamiliar territory and ill equipped, mentally, physically, and rationally to deal with any of it. The marks have caught on, and more are catching on every day, and he’s still not running. But more and more of his wanna be con men in the House, Senate and elsewhere are catching the scent of decay and are running–away from him. He will not handle it well. He will not moderate. He may very well melt down in any number of ways. And he will bring additional, new dishonor to America and to the Office of the President. And if we’re very, very lucky, that’s the worst he’ll cause to happen. - MCM

And also:

I kept all these bookmarked over the past few years:

The very astute Richard Epstein, professor of law at University of Chicago, noted that “I like Obama but I reject the suggestion that he is an intellectual. He is an activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual.”

In response to the question, “How good is Obama’s mind?”, Epstein replied: “His mind is pretty good, but it is a clever ‘means-ends’ mind. He has never written a scholarly article in his entire life. ”

I am Obama’s age and knew many students like him: preppy third world wannabes and poseurs who loved to give the impression that they were both scholarly and engaged by namedropping authors like Fritz Fanon and Edward Said, both of whom Obama has cited as influences.

No real love of books, or of reading and thinking. All just a display for appearance’ sake.

The respected Thomas Lipscomb contends he didn’t write either of his books.

After Obama graduated from Harvard Law, he did not to seek work as a clerk for a prominent liberal judge, as most of his Harvard colleagues did. The work of a law clerk is demanding and it is doubtful that Obama was capable of completing such a challenge. Instead, Obama was hired by a Chicago law firm. But he didn’t do any heavy lifting there either. Instead, he spent all his time writing notes for his first book. As Allison Davis, a founding partner of the firm wrote: Some of my partners weren’t happy with that, Barrack sitting there with his key board on his lap and his feet up on the desk writing the book.

Obama referred to himself as a “law professor,” but – in truth – he had only served as a Senior Lecturer spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.

According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

The Doug Ross blog post is a telling reminder President Obama was never a professor. He was never even close to being a professor. Professors publish articles, compete for tenure, conduct research, win grants, and speak at national and international conferences. They attend faculty meetings where their expertise and skills are challenged in lively debate. In this world, the time professors spend teaching classes, creating exams and grading papers – the majority of Obama’s work as a Senior Lecturer – has only limited significance and prestige.

Obama’s insistence that he was a law school professor shows that he sought the status of being a law school professor…yet never proved he had what it took to compete among the academic elite.
a report from Carol Platt Liebau, managing editor of the Harvard Law Review at the time of Obama’s presidency there [emphasis mine]:

[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.

A lot of the time he quote/unquote “worked from home”, which was sort of a shorthand – and people would say it sort of wryly – shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn’t around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.

He’s the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he’d leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

It reminds me a little bit of my experience with him when he was president of the Harvard Law Review. You know, I hesitated to say a lot about this during the campaign because I really thought maybe it wasn’t fair. That maybe, finally, when he got to be President, this would be a job big enough to engage and hold Barack Obama’s sustained interest, because really, is there a bigger job out here?

Sound familiar?

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding a liberal complaint on "Have Obama’s Policies Failed? Let Us Count the Ways..."
August 13, 2010 - by Rick Moran

Pretorian – having observed for some time the sick parade of collectivist pornography that passes for your thought processes, I have a few questions. Where do you suppose that you fit in this spectrum?

1. Wishful thinker – don’t you just wish that the world was a nicer place? If only everyone were just as smart, just as clever, just as enlightened as you, it surely would be, wouldn’t it? You, and those like you aren’t really up to doing the heavy lifting, but you surely do vote and applaud into power those who will. Trouble is, those folks typically have an agenda that doesn’t quite match yours. As witness the buyers’ remose that appears to be settling in now.

2. Coercive utopian – you just know that no one is going to do what it takes to usher in the new millennium, the New Man, that immanent eschaton that’s just around the corner. Put socialism / communism and its imperatives and consequences right out on the table in front of everyone, and most in their right minds wouldn’t buy it. Hence, Antonio Gramsci’s dioctrine of the ‘long march through the instutions.’ Trouble is, you coercive types tend to be fairly bloody-minded. For example, Billy Ayers and his wrecking crew thought that once they achieved power would have to slaughter over 25 million Americans too stubborn to toe thier utopian socialist line – that was back in the 1970’s so we’re actually giving him a bit of a discount on that 25 million figure. But what’s a few million here and there? Eric Hobsbawm, Marxist historian (now there’s an oxymoron) has also said as much in a BBC interview where he allowed as to how the ’sacrifice’ of millions would have been worth it in order to achieve socialism. So, Prraetorian, is that you? A little slaughter, a ‘re-education camp’ or two not too much a price to pay for heaven on Earth?

3. Lord of the flies– now we’re at the top of the pyramid of power, and those driven by that insatiable will to power. These are the ones who, once they achieve absolute power, really make things happen. And we’ve got over 260 million dead in this century and the last to prove it. Now, Praetorian – pay attention – that’s 260 million unarmed civilian non-combatants killed by their own governments. They were murdered by those exercising the power of the state. They were starved, gassed, tortured, shot, impaled, burned alive, drowned, frozen to death, hacked apart with hoes, axes and machetes – a litany of brutality and atrocity beyond human imagination. Hundreds of millions more lived their lives enslaved, impoverished and in despair. Communism, socialism, the immanent eschaton – who cares? Ideology is only the particular horse they riding in pursiut of absolute control of mankind.

Those who are driven by the will to power typically disguise their intentions under the guise of ‘achieving the greatest good for the greatest number’ or under the rubrics of social or economic justice. They may claim that they are ‘doing the business of the people’ or that they are acting according to ‘the will of the people’. The statement, ‘It’s for the children,’ should inspire instant disbelief and skepticism. When it has come to creating the ‘New Socialist Man,’ those who advance such arguments remain untroubled by the oceans of blood they would have to spill and the mountains of corpses they would have to pile up in order to realize their dreams. They are all animated by the unrestrained and unappeasable ‘will to power’. The Will to Power plays itself out at all levels. From the malice or indifference of the petty bureaucrat to the savage and demonic mass murderers of recent times. As we have seen, power and the exercise of that power is more addictive than any drug.

The need is insatiable. The result is horror.

So – where are you in all of this? If you’re a follower or apologist for today’s political and social multiculturalism, an adherent of liberal democracy, or believe that our culture can continue without a basis in moral absolutes, which camp do you suppose you belong in? Are you a cynical but clever elitist intoxicated by the will to power? Are you on to the deception but support it out of pathological spite? Or are you simply ignorant of your role in the intentional destruction of your culture, even if you think you stand in the relative right?

You may want to re-think your premises, buddy, because you are not likely to survive the consequences of the ones you’ve shown us. History is my witness.

W.D.
------------------------------------

Sigh. So many conservative commentators fall into this trap. It’s as if there were a mind-control device in operation that prevents conservatives from seeing the facts and speaking the truth.

Obama’s policies are not failing. They’re working exactly as intended. The problem isn’t Obama’s grasp of policy matters; it’s his intentions.

Obamunism aims to reduce the United States to a socialist state without the military power required to maintain an acceptable level of international order. It’s not about “combatting the recession.” It’s not about “restoring our image in the world.” It’s about transforming the last free society on Earth into a carbon copy of Sweden, if not something even lower.

A course of action “works” if it brings about the desired result at an acceptable cost. As Obama and his henchmen pay no costs — indeed, they’ve contrived to profit from his machinations — they’re getting exactly what they aim for. They’ll continue to get it until they’ve been expelled from power.

Barack Hussein Obama is a bad man, surrounded by bad men, enacting an evil agenda. Never forget it.

F.W.P.

More as I find 'em - check back frequently

War of the Words (part 4)

"... it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" Macbeth

To finish up these thoughts, there are some words which have been so misused that they effectively have no denotative value at all. Yes, they are still technically in the dictionary, but in many cases the definition of these words is even officially disputed because they have been used over time as buzz words to condemn enemies. Some of these meaningless words and terms include:

• Extreme: Used to describe anybody who disagrees with me. An awful lot of average Americans with traditional views are constantly finding their views labeled "extreme" by those in the media-government complex. I am in this group, and like most Americans I wonder how my views could *possibly* be thought of as extreme. Traditional family (marriage 1 man 1 woman for life) EXTREME! Follow the constitution as written? EXTREME! Punish actual crime based on actions rather than "thought crime"? EXTREME! Encourage and reward initiative, hard work and knowledge? EXTREME! Believe in the Christian God (as opposed to Islam, atheism, or any other religion)? EXTREME! Actually live by your religious beliefs? EXTREME!! Discourage growth of useless and expensive government programs? EXTREME!
• Free Speech: Enshrined in the constitution of the United States, it is a protection from any interference from Congress of our right to comment, propose ideas, or criticize - especially if our criticism is of the government itself. Now, however 'free speech' refers to things like the right to scream obscenities over a PA system on a college campus, be paid federal dollars to smear yourself with chocolate syrup while naked on a stage with a bullwhip stuck "where the sun don't shine", to call your president (only if a Republican) Hitler, to burn American flags, to have sex with animals and broadcast pictures of yourself where kids can find them, and to praise communist thugs who killed hundreds or even millions. It does not, however, include telling someone about your religion if you are Christian, criticizing a Democratic president, or advocating conservative political or economic philosophies. If you are one of those, expect people to shout you down, threaten you, throw pies and other objects, activate fire alarms, disrupt meetings, try to destroy your business, attack your web page, burn your books and try to pass laws to have the government control all forums where you might be able to speak, all in the name of free speech! Evidently it means "Shut up and let me talk because I'm right and you are wrong." Freedom from morality and any controls for me but not for you. What???
• Right Wing: A synonym for all that is evil in the world. What does it mean? Mostly nothing. "Left" is much easier - I would define it generally as the marxist/communist/socialist wing of thinking - redistribution of wealth, private property being the fount of all evil for them. In the end the left runs the gamut from big government liberals to full-blown totalitarian communist regimes. If this is the definition of left then the definition of right should be easy, right? Free market with small government and nothing but perhaps individual darwinian dog-eat-dog struggle at the far end. But no, we see "right wing" describing everything that is not in my above definition of the term "left". This begs the question of who is using the term "right wing", does it not? Fascism is described as "far right" just about everywhere even though the first fascists sometimes called themselves the extreme 'middle' (see below for discussion of the term fascist, which is also nearly meaningless). The use of *anything* with the word "wing" is used to mark your opponents as "out of the mainstream". Which leads to:
• Mainstream: Used to describe "my position, that everybody agrees with", as opposed to your position, which is "extreme", or "right/left wing". That phrase is a very over-used term by the left in this country also, IMHO. At least this term is obviously a statement of a value judgment, and therefore, if taken correctly, it is not a bad term to use. Just be willing to back up your usage of it! Frankly I think that those in this country who are old-fashioned, religious, hard working, law abiding citizens have a more legitimate claim to the term mainstream than the leftists who advocate throwing away traditional morals and also want to introduce total redistribution of wealth. This is changing, though, but largely due to the blurring of categories by the overuse of this term. It is used primarily to create a public image that tells the more sheep-like people in the country that "nobody is like you" and you had therefore better "get with the program"!
• Fascist: What does this even mean? It has been thrown around so often, I actually don't know any more. I thought that I did at one point. In WWII Germany and Italy were fascist, right? I looked on wikipedia and see a very long historical rundown, but even on that page there is a warning that this was "disputed". The posting was pretty thorough and reasonably clear, and says, among other things, that Fascism is a philosophy evidently comprised of many elements historically, including extreme nationalism (or racialism), authoritarian government by elites including government control of business and labor. It advocated "social interventionism" including many progressive things like eugenics, abortion and euthanasia. A lot of this was described by historical fascists as having 'science' control things instead of old fashioned ideas like religion and tradition. Self-described as the "third position" between capitalism and Bolshevism, it nonetheless is now associated with the label "extreme right wing" even in modern mainstream dictionaries. Anyway, to my mind it sounds like historical fascism shares a lot with communism - hatred of religion, control of the economy by the government (by coercion instead of theft), militarism, and progressive social policies. Question: are the policies of the Obama administration more fascist or marxist? Is it possible to tell? The attempts to control free speech of dissenting voices works for either. The increase of deficit spending on redistributionist government programs sounds more marxist. On the other hand, taking over (but keeping the form of) companies like Chrysler are more like the fascists of old. Fascination with having a scientific elite make decisions for us is maybe more fascist but harder to determine. When we hear it nowadays, it is mostly meaningless because 99% of the time you hear it, fascism is used to imply that those of a conservative bent want to tramp on our free speech or put everyone in jail. Realistically, though - who passes more laws and in the end tramples individual liberty more - small government or large government types? Which is more fascist - encouraging competition between insurance companies or a 2500 page bill to take over all health care, with institutions in place to specifically wipe out private insurance and force people to buy insurance from the government approved companies that survive? Doesn't it sound "fascist" to want to wipe out privately owned radio stations in America through oppressive fees and regulations - because others like them interfered with that "wonderful democratic revolution" in Venezuela (Mark Rich, FCC 'diversity czar')? What about those who want the right to regulate and even shut down the internet? Who require bloggers making $11 a year to pay a $300 business license? Who try to make a little girl get a $200 public food license for a lemonade stand?? I think this is pretty self-evident.
  

I agree that this is the most controversial of my posts of this topic. There is probably legitimate debate to be held on my working definitions of the above terms. That just goes to prove my point, though, about how poorly defined these terms have become in the public parlance. It might even be argued whether the destruction of these terms is due to deliberate effort or just shoddy thinking. I imagine that it is because of both of these, but there are many sources in the left (from Alinsky back through history) that make it clear that this is a deliberate tactic of the left, so we should have no illusions or be lulled into complacency by the assurance that "everybody does it". Yes, they do. There is a vast difference, however, in intent and scope that must be acknowledged. "Spin" or "damage control" and outright propoganda and lying (like Goebbels and 'Bagdad Bob') are far opposite ends of the scale. One is human, the other is outright evil.

Finally, there are certainly many other terms that currently mean nothing. My list is far from complete, but it will suffice. These certainly serve to illustrate that the war of ideas in our culture has become something more fundamental. The tactic of the left especially seems to be the complete redefinition or even destruction of language to win the debate by default. In the end, this is the same thing done by kids with their hands caught in the cookie jar, and amounts to lying. How to fight this? Do we fight back using the same tactics? Try through our own repetition to force the definitions of the words our direction? If your enemy does not fight fair or lies when is it okay to use the same tactics? The alternative is to try to explain things like I have tried to here. The problem is that nobody wants to read this kind of thing or talk about it - it's boring to most people. So, how to deal with it? I would love to hear others' ideas on this point.

War of the Words (part 3)

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

Before going on the final part of this article, I admit with some embarrassment that I forgot to mention the most obvious example of the redefinition of a word in the last century. This was of course the creation of the new term "gay" to replace the technical term "homosexual". This really came from nowhere, with no connection to the topic it would be applied to, and in a short time it completely changed the meaning of a word in one generation. Now every time you see anything over 40 years old you have a problem. Even the theme song for the Flintstones ends with "we'll have a gay old time!" Makes you wonder about Fred and Barney. Yikes! Not only does "gay" make no sense as a word choice, but it definitely follows the connotation/denotation rule. The word originally describes an emotional state in the denotational sense, but when it was repurposed by the homosexual community the denotative value became the connotative value, lending a needed boost to the debate about homosexuality through the non-subjective path of feelings and associations that helped shape it to the form it is today. Is it rational? Not really. As an example, how many times have you heard a gay person (yes, I'll use the term because it is the common parlance whether or not I like it) calling into a radio show when the topic is "is gayness a choice?". Almost every time you end up hearing the argument "why would anyone choose to be gay???", on the basis that it is so miserable being that way that nobody, including them, would ever choose this lifestyle if they had a choice. (Strangely, though, they immediately after this run out and dance around in a pride parade and talk about how wonderful it is to be gay - go figure.)

Anyway, now let's get on to one of the most pernicious tactics of all - changing the meaning of words used by your opponents and take away their ability to use language to present their arguments. Here are a few examples:

• American: In the past, everyone pretty knew what this meant. Now it carries a huge amount of negative baggage and means 'imperialist', 'bigoted', 'closed minded', 'repressive', and a host of other putdowns. That's if a conservative wants to use the term. It's a term of shame. How often do these new 'americans' say "why can't we be like the enlightened Europeans?" I will comment in a future blog on this topic, because I think that the definition of "American" is a very important component of our current political debate. This is closely related to the next word...
  
• Patriotic: After 9-11 there was a glorious time when everyone enjoyed being patriotic again. We were unified around what made America great - for a while. The real attack came with the word 'Patriotism'. How many times have you had the quote thrown at you "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? As the left slowly but surely worked to wipe out this wave of real patriotism which was conterproductive to their ends by reintroducing self loathing and self doubt, patriotism was redefined. Now traditional patriotism ("bad" patriotism - for conservatives) is defined as politicized 'jingoism' and 'hate'. In their case, "good" patriotism consisted of calling the president Hitler and a murderous liar every five minutes while selling out your own country by throwing your arms on camera around America-hating communist leaders of other countries and releasing classified documents to undercut your own nation in war. As Hillary Clinton put it: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'". Of course when a leftist president is elected, any dissent is unpatriotic and suddenly Hitler comparisons are the gravest offense against America.
• Morality: Traditional morality is "hate", while new, non-specific amorality is defined as moral. This word had to be destroyed when Jerry Falwell combined the words Moral and Majority. Hence "the moral majority is neither" on bumper stickers. Nowadays we have reached the point where morality is so out of fashion that boasting of (traditional) immorality is a big way to boost your career!
• Discrimination: A simple act has become a word for all that is evil in the world. A person of "discriminating tastes" used to be a person of class. Parents discriminated about possibles spouses for their daughters. Not much needs to be said about this - so much negativity has been piled on this word that the very act of choosing anything causes massive condemnation.
• Democracy: Note how many communist countries call themselves "democratic". How in the world can a dictatorship with no voting and suppressed dissent be democratic? Easy! You just redefine the word democracy! In this case it is not "one man, one vote" (something that leftists always quote but never really want) but instead it means "one man, one dollar". That's how a moron like Michael Moore can get away with the statement that "we need to get rid of Capitalism and replace it with Democracy". As long as one person has $10 and another has $5, then society is not democratic. Better that both have only $1 than that one has more than another. But it is not just about money. Democracy in the leftist sense really means that everybody is exactly the same, no matter what they choose to do with their lives. Look at leftist controlled areas like heavily unionized jobs, and you will see that individualism and initiative are sacrificed for "democracy". I personally have spoken with many people over the years who were persecuted by their union brothers for "working too hard" and told to knock it off, because it makes other people look bad. Besides, they are told, working hard will make no difference in their career anyway since their entire career has been mapped out in the union contract from the day they are hired to the day they retire.

On the subject of the word democracy, there is no way I could leave out C.S.Lewis' words, from the mouth of Screwtape the demon, in the story "Screwtape Proposes a Toast". Note how prophetic Lewis' words are about our current political and educational climate:

The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be ‘undemocratic’… . At universitities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing the things that children used to do in their spare time. Let them, for example, make mud-pies and call it modeling… . The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age-group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coaeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON THE MAT… . Of course this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says "I’m as good as you". This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there was a bunch of tall stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they. As an English politician remarked not long ago, ‘A democracy does not want great men.’...

For ‘democracy’ or the ‘democratic spirit’ (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, morally flaccid from lack of discipline in youth, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and soft from lifelong pampering. And that is what Hell wishes every democratic people to be. For when such a nation meets in conflict a nation where children have been made to work at school, where talent is placed in high posts, and where the ignorant mass are allowed no say at all in public affairs, only one result is possible.

So, how do we reclaim the language? How do we keep the left from stealing from our hands the very tools we use to communicate ideas, to prevent us from even discussing them?

(More in part 4)

War of the Words (part 2)

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - Juliet Capulet.

I stated in part 1 that the left works hard to control the meanings of words, or at least the words that can be used in a discussion, and I should provide examples to back up my claim. Here are a few:

The debate over abortion is an obvious example. A lot of the dialog in this area is about terminology and even images. Just think of the names that the sides give to themselves. Instead of being pro-abortion or anti-abortion (which would have been the most straightforward and technically correct), the left started framing the issue as "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", which really skirts the issue being debated. I mean, there are a whole series of choices involved, including whether or not to have sex, whether or not to do it in the context of marriage, whether or not to use birth control over the long term, whether or not to use protection, etc., that come long before the choice that they want to be able to make. Certainly anti-abortion people can point out that once a person has made a whole series of choices that have a really likely outcome, they should abide by the expected results of their choices.

Now, I am not planning on making this blog about abortion arguments, so I won't pursue this line of thought further - I just want to point out how misleading the term "pro-choice" is in this context, and that what it really seems to mean is "no consequences for choices, ever". Actually, almost uniquely in the case of the abortion issue the right side has managed to see this tactic and fight back - not to victory but at least to a truce - by the use of their own self-identification as being "pro-life". The left fought this with extreme vigor for years but they managed to get it to stick, and the pro-abortion people finally had to accept the name. In this case maybe there is a germ of an idea of how to fight back on this tactic so it is interesting for that reason. Of course, the names of the sides is only one area where this battle of images and words is fought. Since this is such a visceral issue for the left, they have been attacking on multiple fronts. For instance, the insistence on using terms like "tissue" rather than "fetus", "embryo" or "baby". When they lose this battle, they lose the argument with all but the most hardened abortion activists. Finally, there is the use of images (worth 1000 words?). Why even use words when a picture of a coat hanger conjures up horrific images of blood-filled bathtubs and promising lives ended by an unwanted parasite? The pro-life side has responded in kind. Now while I personally don't really like the tactic of showing horrific pictures of aborted babies, I believe that the pro-abortion side really asks for this response with its own image tactics.

Besides "pro-choice" there are a plethora of words that have been, through sheer repetition, made into "power words" that now have a life of their own and can be thrown into any argument like an atom bomb, producing a huge crater and a bright flash that will end the conversation and immobilize their opponents. For instance,

• Hate: This one is used to silence anybody you disagree with, who has any scruples at all. Since your moral beliefs are just motivated by "hate", just shut up! You don't even have a right to talk! This is easily seen in the current "gay marriage" debate. Never mind that the definition of marriage has been consistent for many thousands of years up until just a couple of years ago, you obviously only want to keep it that way because "you hate gay people".


• -phobia (or fear): For instance - "homophobic", which is thrown out at those who think that homosexual behavior is wrong or bad for society, or that it might be a choice. This is a very effective tool, because it allows a moral counter-attack. What is the issue on homosexuality? Whether it is immoral or not. Since the accusation is a moral one, the best way to respond is to respond in kind. Outside of a church, however, accusing someone of being a Pharisee or legalist would only confuse people, but if you accuse someone of being cowardly or hateful you assume the moral high ground and the other side is suddenly fighting uphill when they least expected it.

• Diversity: What a misused term! The left uses the word "diversity" to mean "you must throw away all of your beliefs to include all of the most demonstrably intolerant people in the world on their own terms". How must more contradictory could this be?? Just think of all the staunch feminists who want every trace of "intolerant Christianity" to be wiped out of society, but are instead instead advocating that we need to accept, for diversity's sake, those who wish to impose sharia law. Ohhhhh-kaaaayyyyyy...

• Racist: In the old days this term was used to describe those who hated people who were different than themselves, especially based on skin color. Now, it has been redefined to mean "any white person who is against liberalism". Sometimes the person does not even have to be white. Other than it being opposed to liberalism there does not seem to be any other consideration any more. If a black panther group stands outside a polling place holding a bat and threatening white people who are trying to vote is not racist, a man yelling on a street corner that "I hate white people ... you've got to kill their babies!" is not racist, an organization named "the race" (La Rasa) with the slogan "for the race, all; for others, nothing" who want a "brown continent" are not racist - THEN WHAT IS RACIST? Oh, they answer, racism is about power. Okay, then can a black be racist in South Africa where they now have control of the government and are in the majority?

Finally, there is controlling the narrative through use of repeated words and phrases. One galling example is the Prop 8 debate here in California. The leftist narrative here shows in every news story where they talk about how the law "to ban gay marriage" is being considered. It also shows every time they interview someone and they talk about how people have suddenly sprung up that have taken away equal rights (for the first time in America!!!) by denying the equal right to get married. The first and second example are related - they involve flipping the positive and negative using terminology. Prop 8 was not a proposal to ban something that had existed since the dawn of time. It was a correction of a lawless act of a few public officials who broke their oaths to uphold the laws and the meanings of those laws that had stood for over 200 years of American history.

It was only a few years ago that one official in the bay area started doing "gay marriages" on his own authority. A law was passed to define marriage more exactly (something never before thought necessary - sort of like defining "light" or something), was struck down by a court which then refused to stay on the result of prop 8 (creating a problem but not a legal precedent). When prop 8 passed it was no more a "banning of gay marriage" than it was a law banning calling eating pizza marriage. But listen to any news report and see if they use any other term than banning, and you will see how strong that this tactic is when they manage to insert new word meanings into the cultural lexicon. As far as equal rights, everyone has the right to marry. That is not the issue and they know it. The issue is whether they have the right to call anything marriage. Any commitment = marriage? Why not pets? Why not fifteen people? Why not those 15-minute marriages that make prostitution okay in many muslim countries? If "equal rights" means the right to define any term to mean anything you want and then obey the law only if your definition agrees with the law, how can *any* law stand? It can't, of course, but as long as "hate", "equal rights", "phobia" and "banning gay marriage" are the language that define the debate, the debate is really over before it starts.

The final question to ask is, is this deliberate dishonesty, muddy thinking or the new glorious age ushered in by post-modernistic freedom from "rigid thinking" and "dogmatic definitions"? I think it is a combination of the first two. Master manipulators achieve goals through this tactic and many of the manipulated masses let it happen because it is (a) easier than trying to pierce through the clouds of obfuscation and (b) the connotative value of the key words and phrases are very powerful on the emotional side. One more thought needs to be added to this discussion - the sabotaging your opponents' key words to disable them before the fight.

(stay tuned for part 3)

War of the Words (part 1)

"Words, words, words! I'm so sick of words! I get words all day long first from him now from you, is that all you blighters can do?" (Eliza Dolittle from My Fair Lady).

As Rush Limbaugh often used to say: "words mean things". The choice of words in a debate is very important, but not just for the purpose of conveying meaning. Those of us who are more literal-minded can get frustrated with the vagarities and subtleties that can be involved in discussions of emotional or controversial topics. Unfortunately, it is not enough to use the correct dictionary definition in a conversation at the best of times, and in these (post-)modern times it is an even more ineffective strategy in public debate. Why? There are several reasons.

First of all, as Francis Schaeffer pointed out, words actually have two meanings: the 'denotative' and 'connotative'. The denotative meaning is the literal meaning of the word, while the connotative value consists of the feelings and associations that are aroused in the hearer by the word, independent of its literal meaning. This has probably been true from the beginning of human history and it is impossible to escape from. As an easy example, look at the two words "resolute" and "stubborn". Both have nearly the same denotative meaning - the quality of sticking with a point of view no matter what social pressure is brought to bear. The connotative meanings of the two words, however, are vastly different. If a person is "resolute", he is a paragon of virtue, steadfast, dependable - a moral leader. If a person is "stubborn", however, he is a closed-minded cretin, unable to consider other points of view, obnoxious, unfriendly, and self-centered.

Obviously we ignore this second meaning of words at our peril. If the right words are used to formulate the question, the debate can be over before we even start. Schaeffer talked about this in the context of the destruction and marginalization of traditional Christianity by modern anti-religious groups who, after repudiating God himself, appropriate "god words" to promote their own philosophies. They are using the powerful and heavily weighted connotative values of the words *in direct contradiction* to the denotative value, to promote anti-God and immoral arguments, and the power of the words allows the speaker to burrow past the rational resistance of the hearer without a fight. We must, therefore, be constantly on the alert to this type of argumentation and also use it to our advantage. I would argue, though, that we must not take it too far. An argument won this way is really a lie and we must always struggle to blow away the fog to make the underlying truth crystal clear.

The appropriation of the opponent's words is a sneaky and effective tactic, and it forms the basis of many attacks on both Christianity and American traditional values. For instance, marxists have co-opted entire denominations by using biblical words to promote socialist outcomes. Can you imagine going to Luther, Augustine, Calvin or Paul, for that matter, and telling them that in your church you define "salvation" as having the government take away everyone's money and forcibly doling it out to the people in small but equal amounts (and justifying killing over 250 million people in the process)? But if you go to a marxist church (like the one the president and his mom evidently attended in Hawaii when he was a kid or the Chicago church he went to later) you will hear about "salvation" which is based on "redistributive social justice" and leads right to Karl Marx, rather than to Jesus. Actually now they have even co-opted the person of Jesus Christ to promote socialism (as opposed to personal charity, righteousness, and generosity of persons).

The left knows about this and is very obvious in its use of this principle. In fact, they have even gone beyond this. The left actually works very hard to control the language. George Orwell described the process very dramatically and specifically in the book 1984, of course, and O'brien lectures Winston Smith very unashamedly on the process. Not only do those on the left (religious and political) constantly use connotative words dishonestly, they work constantly to control the vocabulary of any debate, even actively pushing completely new definitions onto words every day.

(More on this in part 2.)