Saturday, July 25, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Dismemberment vs. Fear of Drowning; A "Progressive"ly Stupid Comparison
A trendy fad for moral relativism has produced some bizarre debate of late.
In a world where everyone was moderate and reasonable I guess one could just persuade violent fanatical extremists to give up Jihad and “give peace a chance.” That probably works for coffee shop poets and some college professors.
Certainly no one wishes to read of (real) torture being used by any government but I find it odd that in a world where gruesome maiming and bloodletting is regularly used against people who want no more than to live freely, some critics' moral passions continually focus on three incidents of waterboarding by the U.S. After 9/11. Then there are the additional “tortures” by the U.S. that spark outrage; sleep deprivation, loud annoying music, insult, and exposure to harmless but scary looking insects (yes, that really was one of the "tortures"). I think the CIA and military may have even actually roughed up a few Jihadists. In spite of the “tortures” committed by U.S. personal against the saints who store ammunition in hospitals and schools and strap explosives to young women or retarded persons, I find it amazing that some can even see America's treatment of Jihadists as moral equivalents to dismemberment, eye gouging, breaking bones, and beheadings – common practice in many countries.
The moral relativists' stance is the same mentality that, upon hearing of a brutal slaying, jump to defend the “rights” of...the murderer! OK, it's good that there are advocates for the rights of all varieties of villains, but if me, my family, or friends are the potential victims of criminal or terrorist violence, I think I know who I'd want on my side and arm-chair philosophers are low on the list (I lied, they're not even on the list). The left in general has a bad track record for demonstrating any allegiance to the interests of free societies and their citizens. It's always the “rights” of dictators and authoritarian extremists that elicit “concern” from the spoiled brats of left-land. Case in point; where exactly are all the Hollywood actors, entertainers, and “artists” regarding the human rights of the citizens of North Korea's gulag? There are enough consistent stories coming out of there to turn anyone's stomach, but the left's passion is with some extra-national religious fanatics that seek to kill and enslave millions with their new and improved fascist Caliphate.
The transparent bias of the “terrorist rights” lobby reveals more about their hatred for America than their ability to arrive at superior moral judgments. It is more than appropriate to note the deafening silence of those perennially outraged by America's perceived misdeeds when confronted with daily horrors in North Korea, Iran et. al.
The moral relativists seem to be paraphrasing Joseph Stalin; “One [act of temporary discomfort and induced fear] is a tragedy, a million [actual cases of permanent physical injury] are a mere statistic.
Moral people do have to “take a side” -- not taking the side of free and open society under attack from totalitarian thugs is defaulting to the cause of authoritarian coercion, regardless of how well one minces words with relativistic detachment. Pretending that one stands outside and above such moral opposites is transparent to anyone who hasn't been force fed a mandatory college diet of Howard Zinnn or Noam Chomsky et. al.
Trendy sympathies for the comfort of terrorists and recurring passionate disdain for the actions of free societies that seek to prevent plots of mass violence is hardly a high horse of moral insight. It's just business as usual from the folks who brought us communism, socialism, fascism, and Nazism.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
"The self-promotion stimulus"
Stuff like this makes me sick...It's the principal.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Can You Say, "Full of Sh_t?"
I have yet to hear someone argue that "you need to be more 'open-minded'" (they're typically someone that is losing a debated issue) who is genuinely an "open-minded" person themselves.
When debating issues like America defending itself against authoritarian thugs or how much freedom I should be allowed to maintain, I dare say that others claiming to be "open-minded" for opposing such things are expressing a transparent con at best.
When someone says that you need to be “more open-minded,” what they typically mean is that you should agree with them.
So full of...themsleves.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Obama is America's Very Own Hugo Chavez
Dick Morris on the many con-schemes that Obama will use to further entrench his Chavista style "revolution" in America.