Tuesday, March 27, 2018

She is right about the March for Our Lives spectacle

While some are comparing it to the Sermon on the Mount, MLK's March on Washington, God's decision to create the heavens and earth, others are scratching their heads and saying, "Sorry, the emperor looks naked to me."

Just why this suddenly happened after one of the few mass shootings that could easily have been prevented if the current laws had been followed and procedures adhered to is beyond me.  Apparently a couple of the students were already pretty boisterous activists, pushing for things like gay alliances and LGBT and other Leftist tropes.  Perhaps they just know how to get the ball rolling.

Since the Left has thrown out all pretense of objectivity, fairness, truth, values, morals or principles, jumping on this and ramming it through in such a nakedly partisan and deliberate manner shouldn't be surprising.

Nonetheless, those behind gun control, banning guns, eliminating the 2nd Amendment, hating non-liberals, pushing for Democratic politicians are acting like it's the dawn of a new era in the history of the universe. Since these partisans happen to occupy the halls of Washington, the news media, Hollywood and academia, and apparently high office in religious institutions, expect this to be chiseled as an event demanding all worship and adoration into the remnants of former Confederate monuments that were destroyed by the Left's Iconoclasm.  Anything less and you're a baby killing murderer.  Thus the protesters.

Nonetheless, for those looking at this and saying, "Nope, still see a naked emperor here", we have someone who explains exactly why this is.  It isn't that we worship guns instead of Jesus, enjoy mass slaughter or get our kicks out of murdered babies.  Many of us actually have kids and don't want them to be a victim of such cruel and pointless violence any more than we want anyone else to.  We just see there is something wrong in all of this, so wrong that this March/Movement is diverting attention from actually solving the problem and working to lower the rates of killings in deference to partisan agendas.


Don't know who she is. Maybe she's been wrong about everything else, but this time she was spot on correct about almost everything (save the whole arming of teachers, which I feel is still avoiding the core of the problem).

38 comments:

  1. In your third paragraph you state that “the Left has thrown out all pretense of objectivity, fairness, truth, values, morals or principles.” In your fourth paragraph, you then state that we “hate all non-liberals.” Is accusing your political opponents of having no truth, values, or morals not hate? If it is okay for you to accuse us of this, why shouldn’t we accuse you right back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I merely point out what is happening. When I hear even Catholics say there is no compromise, only the enemy to be defeated, I'd say that's not a call for dialogue. When I see protesters calling any who don't fall in line baby killers and murderers who are going to get what they have coming, that's tough to reconcile with a serious desire to debate. And when I'm seeing these students in many ways use the same rhetoric only recently condemned by those on the left supporting them, including excusing why they bullied the shooter rather than take responsibility, it's hard to believe there is an actual straight line of solid principles there.

      I'm the first to give more than a few benefits of a couple doubts. But it's becoming impossible for me to appraise the situation any other way than I have in this post.

      Delete
    2. Karen
      "If it is okay for you to accuse us of this, why shouldn’t we accuse you right back?" Mr Griffey has already been accused, it would be a redundant action on your part.

      Delete
    3. Is accusing your political opponents of having no truth, values, or morals not hate?

      No - why would it be?

      Of course I slightly disagree with Dave, I think there is at least 1 value - to win. After all, to engage in a democracy or a discussion is to entertain the notion that one might lose. The Left seems to find such a consideration inconceivable.

      Delete
    4. I haven’t noticed any willingness to talk on the right, either. Rush Limbaugh has been calling women’s rights activists filthy names for 25 years, including asserting that feminism only exists becaue of ugly women. (Rush is a disgusting physical specimen but he manages to make bank. Apparently to the right wing women are only useful if we are conventionally attractive and stupid.) He is only one example of thousands of conservatives who make a living calling liberals names. You all are just angry because we have started yelling back.

      Delete
    5. Hi again. Thanks for response. I don't know your age, but once Reagan was elected in 80, things got ugly. Things had been ugly before of course. Not all 60s protests saw flowers in people's hair.

      By the 80s, it was becoming more and more solidified, and unified. The Daytime Talk Shows (imagine a time when they weren't all Jerry Springer) were almost universally liberal, and often very hostile to the GOP, Conservatives, traditional Christians, and even America's heritage. Limbaugh was, in many ways, merely an answer to them. He was a one man version of what was spread out across many different outlets: the talk shows, SNL, HBO comedy, film, music, increasingly the education institutions, the press (the post-Cronkite era was becoming more and more open about their biases). All unified largely against non-liberals and non-liberal views.

      But even then, neither Limbaugh nor the old Daytime Talk hosts went where some are going today - and that's going radical to the point of hate, violence, assault. The radical right has it of course. But the problem is - and I keep hammering this - the radical Left is just as bad, but not called out on it, sometimes it's even defended or excused by the press or educators or entertainers or whoever. That's the problem. It's a problem seen with this sudden march against guns, and it's been a problem for years.

      Delete
    6. He is only one example of thousands of conservatives who make a living calling liberals names.

      Right, totally different from Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, John Oliver, Jon Stewart, Samantha Bee... well we could go on. Though I laugh at the idea of "thousands." It's more likely that for every 1 you name, I could name 2 counter examples. Can you even name 10?

      I will say Bill Maher is SLIGHTLY more willing to have counter views on his show. Usually at a 3 to 1 ratio.

      You all are just angry because we have started yelling back.

      "have started"????

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Oh Karen, honey, history existed before you were born and democrat behavior now is nothing new.

      1964 LBJ ad against Goldwater - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

      And don't forget the 1k+ psychologists who said Goldwater was unfit to be prez - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

      “All of us who covered the Reagans agreed that President Reagan was personable and charming, but I’m not so certain he was nice. It’s hard for me to think of anyone as nice when I hear him say ‘The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.’ To my mind, a President should care about all people, and he didn’t, which is why I will always feel Reagan lacked soul.”
      — UPI White House reporter Helen Thomas in the July 1993 Good Housekeeping.

      Hey let's just see what was said about the very first Republican president, eh?

      Historian Mark Scroggins noted that “the campaign between the Republicans and the Democrats were particularly nasty. The Republicans tried to convince Western homesteaders that their farms would be carved into plantations if Breckenridge won the election….The Republicans took the brunt of the name calling, and a good share of the mud was slung at Hannibal Hamlin because of his swarthy complexion.” Hamlin was repeatedly described as a mulatto – an expansion on the usual description of his party as “Black Republicans.” -Source: http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-the-election-of-1860/

      We can make a game of it. Name the president, we'll see just how low the left went in attacking them.

      Delete
    7. Nate, I'm the first to admit people on any side can be bad, or say bad, or act bad. The problem is, those examples you cite are mainstream, celebrated and endorsed. Remember Sandra Fluke? No less than three weeks were spent by the media, pundits, politicians and others trashing and hashing Limbaugh over what he said. What Maher said about Sarah Palin? Barely noticed, and when it was brought up, the most anyone said was 'Ah, shucks Bill, you shouldn't have.' Obama even agreed to be on his show and high-five him about how awesome he is. So once again - you know my mantra - it's not the presence of bad people on the Left, it's that it's ignored or even endorsed by the venues of importance in our culture.

      Delete
    8. Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a whore. Her testimony was that her roommate needed birth control pills to treat, I think, endometriosis. Sex had nothing to do with it. Limbaugh, however, flat lied about Fluke’s testimony to Congress in the grossest manner possible. That should have ended Limbaugh’s career. (Actually, his career should have ended when he called twelve-year-old Chelsea Clinton the White House dog, but your side is quite forgiving of men who insult women who refuse to conform to your rigid roles. Even when those women are actually children. So bloody much for your vaunted chivalry.)

      Delete
    9. Karen, you do know what Bill Maher called Sarah Palin, correct? Bill Maher, who continued to be interviewed by mainstream outlets, who hosted President Obama (who gave Maher a high-five and commended his show)? I'm not apologizing for Limbaugh. He has said plenty of things I found offensive. But here is the billion dollar difference: When Limbaugh said what he said about Fluke, the press pounced and spent weeks chastising him, and even rallying against him, some in the hope of getting him thrown off the air. And yet, when things said about Palin (or Bachmann, or the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault/rape), or others, at best it's been ignored. At worst, it's been excused or even supported. That's the problem. And much of this, dating back decade, was far before the world had heard of Rush Limbaugh.

      Delete
    10. So once again - you know my mantra - it's not the presence of bad people on the Left, it's that it's ignored or even endorsed by the venues of importance in our culture.

      And I agree with you. Hence why I'm trying to shake Karen's mistaken notion that somehow the left have always been such perfect little angels. They haven't. Pick a year and a target and I can find examples of the left behaving just as badly as anything they accuse the right of.

      Actually, his career should have ended when he called twelve-year-old Chelsea Clinton the White House dog, but your side is quite forgiving of men who insult women who refuse to conform to your rigid roles.

      1) That's not what actually happened. Here's the actual video.

      Here's the full apology he said on that show four days later:

      "Ladies and gentlemen, I’m sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who’s out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I’m terribly sorry. I don’t–look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don’t need to get laughs by commenting on people’s looks, especially a young child who’s done nothing wrong. I mean, she can’t control the way she looks. And we really–we do not–we do not do that on this kind of show. So put a picture up of her now and so we can square this.
      All right. We’re sorry. We didn’t intend to hurt her feelings. We’ll be back with our final segment right after this. Don’t go away."

      The funny part is that you accuse it by OUR side...

      'Chelsea Clinton, the inspiration for the "Chasing Liberty" movie, was so pained when she was mocked on a "Wayne's World" skit on "Saturday Night Live" that Mike Myers sent an apology to the White House.' -Source

      Huh, SNL - famously liberal - also made fun of Chelsea, and Mike Meyers went on to have a fairly successful career as Shrek and Austin Powers.

      Insulting women who refuse to conform? Shall we go over all the sexist things your side has said about Betsy Devos? Dana Loesch? Sarah Palin? Nikki Haley? Sarah Huckabee Sanders? How many should we go over with this list.

      Your side is just as ready to excuse the sins of your partisans as any other human.

      Delete
  2. "I become very uneasy when politics looks like religion."
    https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-canonization-of-teenagers.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, this is nearing creepy levels. I mean, shouldn't Mark be calling them out? Isn't this the sort of cult folk hero worship he has always so loudly condemned? Heck, isn't this what the Left itself has often mocked conservatives for - lifting up their little heroes?

      Delete
    2. Mark Shea and his pal Scott Alt are now feuding with Karl Keating. Remember though Mark and Scott aren't liberal *wink*. They just happen to agree with everything liberal.

      Delete
  3. Congrats on featuring me in this blog post. However, what I got from this post was "Emma's speech sucked because she is a dyke. The best speech on MFOL is from this Tammy Lahren clone I found on Youtube, because MUH GUNS!".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I pointed out her activism, which her own supporters are dutifully proud of. That shows she's no stranger to activism. She is not some wallflower thrust into the spotlight unwillingly, but someone who has been putting both feet into the spotlight on behalf of her causes for some time, causes that are every bit as left leaning as the push to abolish the 2nd Amendment which is gaining steam. I never made a statement about her as a person. I never said her speech sucked. I don't think it deserves to be elevated to I Have a Dream or the Gettysburg Address, but that's an opinion and an assessment of the move to beatify her. The tendency of lifting up people as god-heroes has been condemned by those on the Left for some years. And there is likely justification for that. But then don't turn on a dime and do the same thing just because. And this doesn't count her troubling defense of how they treated the shooter, which, up until a few weeks ago, would have been called bullying and condemned outright.

      Delete
    2. what I got from this post was...

      Really, Maddox? You're going to try the Cathy Newman tack?

      Maybe try dealing with what was actually said next time (especially as Dave never made any comments about people's appearances).

      Delete
    3. Well, that was my first impression about the speech, but only time will tell if it will rank with Lincoln, Demosthenes, and Cicero (I hope it does. The rhetorical long pause is a work of genius). And it's obvious that Emma, David (whom I consider to be as fearmongering as the Superbeets Cherokee aka Dana Loesch), and the rest aren't a bunch of average kids who randomly met up after the shooting. Also, they didn't bully the shooter: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/nikolas-cruz-shooting-florida.html?smid=tw-share

      Delete
    4. Really, Nate? You're idolizing the guy who made a video called "The Metaphysics of Pepe"? I was dealing what he was saying (he was talking about Emma being the president of her school's GSA).

      Delete
    5. Dramatic pauses are a classic rhetorical trick. If you're ever losing an audience, there is nothing you can do that will grab their attention more than just stopping and getting quiet for a moment. And it's not like over the top isn't a feature of modern discourse. I just remember folks to the left of center getting on more conservative types when they would laud this or that speech or individual. Fair enough, but let's keep it consistent.

      As for the bullying, I'm sure not every student in the school bullied him - but someone did, per the students at the school. Also, Emma justified ostracizing him which, in numerous 'town hall/debates' about bullying has been labeled a form of bullying. That's the problem with the March in general: Increasingly partisan; vitriolic at times if not, by their own definition, hateful; focused on what others must do (more than one shooting has occurred because a small firearm was brought into a school in a backpack); and of course this type of mixed message. Is bullying now wrong only based on who is being bullied? The rush to declare the entire youth movement - suspiciously devoid of any youth who aren't behind one particular policy narrative - the greatest thing since Jesus before we really know much is a sure fire way of digging one's self into a hole.

      Delete
    6. You're idolizing the guy who made a video called "The Metaphysics of Pepe"?

      Where did I say anything about JBP? One doesn't have to agree with him to note that Cathy Newman had a poor and dishonest performance. Just like your efforts.

      I was dealing what he was saying (he was talking about Emma being the president of her school's GSA).

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      What you said was:

      what I got from this post was "Emma's speech sucked because she is a dyke.

      So answer the question: Where did Dave say anything about Emma's looks or sexuality? You said you got from the post "she is a dyke" so please, show your work. Where did Dave say or imply anything remotely close to that?

      Maybe you would get more out of a post if you read what was actually written rather than let your fevered imaginings run wild.

      Delete
    7. Did we watch the same speech, Dave? Because the speech I heard had 4 minutes and 25 seconds of silence following some rapid-fire anaphora, not some random Obama dramatic pause. I consider it to be the best speech since Peggy Noonan stopped writing speeches. But your real problem with the speech is that you don't agree with the message. Yeah, I feel that the kids have to settle their differences with Kyle the NRA puppet, but they are giving the NRA a taste of their own medicine. As for the bullying, did you read the article? His actions made people to ostracize him even when students tried to help him.

      Delete
    8. Nate, my bad about the whole Lobstergate thingy. And he implied about Emma's sexuality and presidency in her school's GSA when he said "pushing for things like gay alliances".

      Delete
    9. I didn't say the pause was a problem. I said it works. You can use dramatic pauses in a variety of ways. No problem. As for content, the speech is typical of what we've heard from the marches. Since the marches seem to coincidentally only contain those who are on the same page regarding gun control, we shouldn't expect much else.

      As for NRA = Hitler, I wrote somewhere that I would buy that except so many say 'The NRA isn't what it used to be, now it's evil', when I heard the same said decades ago about the NRA when, supposedly, the NRA wasn't as bad as it is now. From what I can tell, the NRA is just like anything that gets in the way of the latest social movement: evil and needs to go. Not a great sales pitch to those who don't always get on board with the latest cause.

      As for the actions of the students aimed at the shooter - up until about a couple weeks ago, nobody said bullying was bad contingent upon the person being bullied. At no time in any town hall, group meeting, televised special or anything about bullying have I heard anyone say 'go ahead, it's OK if they deserve it.' Just the opposite actually. In fact, ostracizing people has been called out specifically as not only a form of bullying, but one that can be dangerous because - guess what - from it can emerge your shooters and mass killers. In fact a local news cast just had yet another special town hall about bullying a week ago where kids involved in some project were addressing that very thing - how to reach out to all kids and discourage others from alienating each other. So mixed messages at the very least.

      Not to mention that the last march was far more politically partisan, and the rhetoric starting to slip into more vitriolic and aggressive forms than the first time around. If it keeps on that direction, I have a feeling gun sales will jump in the near future.

      Delete
    10. And he implied about Emma's sexuality and presidency in her school's GSA when he said "pushing for things like gay alliances".

      Uh... you were the only one to bring up the GSA.

      What Dave actually said was:

      "Apparently a couple of the students were already pretty boisterous activists, pushing for things like gay alliances and LGBT and other Leftist tropes."

      Which the way that was phrased made me think it didn't even include Emma. (I've heard far more about Hogg's prior activism than Emma's so far but then I'm not obsessing over details about these kids.)

      Again you seem to be backfilling in a lot of assumptions that are unwarranted.

      Delete
    11. FWIW Maddox, I included those as examples. I looked into what bios I could find, just to make sure I wasn't missing something - like they had been in other shootings or something. Those were examples that were listed by name, while speaking of other activism on her and others' parts. The point being, these are not little quiet types dragged into doing something they never wanted to do. They've been working at this for a long time with other issues, so they are experienced and know what they are doing. I mentioned the G/S alliance and LGBT because those were mentioned by name in the sources I consulted.

      Delete
    12. Please delete the dox, Dave, I want to keep my real name private! As you said in the old post, you don't think the NRA is a force for evil. Just google "Dana Loesch clenched fist of truth" for a video to prove to you what kind of evil fearmongers they are. Also, about that Jonah Goldberg piece, I have several things to say. First, Bernie Sanders can be pro-gun at times. For example, he has made it harder for gun companies to be sued. Also, this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html?utm_term=.d3712e40f454

      The NRA began its leftward shift in 1977. And yes, they are murderers, as they are the only stumbling block behind background checks.

      Delete
    13. Nate, GSA means Gay Straight Alliance.

      Delete
    14. Nate, GSA means Gay Straight Alliance.

      And here I was wondering if it was the Golfing Students Association.

      Still, how does Dave saying "gay alliances" mean Emma == Dyke? Since, as you just pointed out, GSA == Gay AND straight, so she could just as easily be straight as not. So - again - how did you come up with such a baseless reading?

      Just google "Dana Loesch clenched fist of truth" for a video to prove to you what kind of evil fearmongers they are.

      Funny, when I googled that this was literally the only result I got (the rest required me to turn off safe search). So your evidence is lefty freakout?

      Also, about that Jonah Goldberg piece, I have several things to say. First, Bernie Sanders can be pro-gun at times.

      Yeah, because Vermont actually has more gun freedom than Texas. Know why? Because the north never suffered from Jim Crow and the gun control laws that were designed to disarm blacks.

      And so you've found 1 (ONE) democrat politician that's a gun-rights guy. The same guy the party employed cheap tactics to keep from getting the nomination so I'm not sure how that disproves Dave's or Jonah's point.

      But let's grant a minute. Ok, so does that mean we can have a compromise? We'll elect Bernie and he'll hand out free healthcare if we can also get some kind of gun socialist system? ("you've heard of food stamps, now introducing: bullet stamps!") Sound fair?

      And yes, they are murderers, as they are the only stumbling block behind background checks.

      Background checks have been in place since 1998. How exactly are they a stumbling block to something that already exists and is in place?

      Delete
    15. Did you see the video? Any sane person has a right to be freaked out by this video! Also, I should have said "universal background checks".

      Delete
    16. The quote has been deleted.

      As for the other - no. The NRA is not, repeat NOT, murderers. In fact, and this might be worth pondering, is it possible that the growing divisions we've seen for the last several decades in which one side insists the other side is mass murdering evil baby killers is problematic? Remember back when people were attacking abortion clinics? Remember what people said? They said that since pro-lifers insisted abortion was 'killing babies' it couldn't help but inspire people to violence. If that's the case, isn't it possible that the growing tendency of framing every debate (the gun/NRA issue is but one of many) as 'those evil people who want to murder' is behind the growing tendency of people to determine anyone not on their side is an evil whatever? Think on that. I could easily, with little effort, find just as hateful, horrible things said on behalf of decidedly non-NRA issues. But then what? Are they also the enemy to be eliminated? Remember, this whole mantra of 'guns have always been available, that's the difference' ignores the great elephant in the room that guns were always available, but routine mass and school shootings only began a few decades ago. Ignoring that is almost like saying we don't care about violence, we just hate guns.

      Delete
    17. Not the quote, I even thanked you for it. I was meaning the comment in which I unintentionally leaked out my real name.

      Delete
    18. Also, I like your views on the blood on the hands rhetoric. But you have to acknowledge that the NRA is guilty of similar stuff.

      Delete
    19. Did you see the video? Any sane person has a right to be freaked out by this video!

      Again, shall we start going over the long list of similar style videos people on the left has put out? (let's start with the works of Michael Moore... oh what about that film where people were blown up because they disagreed about global warming?)

      Also, I should have said "universal background checks"

      And what makes those different from the background checks we have now? You want gun sellers to go over all your facebook data? (Should we have Cambridge get to work on it?) Or maybe less privacy?

      But you have to acknowledge that the NRA is guilty of similar stuff.

      He already has.

      "None of this is to say I agree with the NRA, or think it hasn't gone off on the wrong tracks, or shouldn't back off and consider certain regulations or upgrade some approaches to gun ownership." -Source

      Again, you seem to consistently make a lot of assumptions that just aren't true.

      Delete
    20. As Nate pointed out, I've never denied the NRA has gone places I don't agree with. There are plenty out there who are over the top. Right now, the million dollar parlor game is figuring out why Marco Rubio, the most visible Republican to come out and say he's willing to listen to gun control measures, has suddenly become 'Satan Rubio - Baby Killer!' Why is that? If these forces are just about 'measured solutions to reduce gun violence', why take the Republican who made his willingness to reach across the aisle the most obvious into Hitler? That's the issue. Can the NRA go too far or take positions I consider wrong? Sure. Who isn't wrong sometimes? I"m sure I'm wrong sometimes (something I'm not hearing from the youth in these marches, BTW). But it's no different than what I'm seeing in many outlets and from many sources in our modern discourse.

      Delete
  4. So now that we agree to disagree on the speech, let's talk about the NRA. It's just as evil as it was when Wayne LaPierre used an Alzheimer's-addled cinema legend to hold up a rifle. Also, the NRA has become far more politically partisan, and the rhetoric even more vitriolic and aggresive than anything the Parkland kids ever said. Also, from what I understand, his classmates ostracized him because he was threat to their well-being. As I said, read the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this Maddox Hightower?? Did you just dox yourself?

      Anyway, yes let's talk about the NRA.

      Shall we start with the time it helped the gun drive to get arms to Britain while they were fighting the Nazis?

      Say we abolish the NRA now. Who's going to help out future gun drives for those countries in need in future wars?

      Delete
    2. As I said above, I've heard the NRA called evil for quite a few years. I don't agree with them all the time of course. But I don't see it as some force of evil that the gun control advocates are portraying it as. In fact, that so many in the last march were portraying anyone not on their side as some evil enemy sworn to the slaughter is enough to give me pause.

      I do agree with you that the NRA has become more partisan. Jonah Goldberg - no fan of current GOP politics - did a piece on that a couple months back, pointing out that until the early 90s, the NRA wasn't really that partisan. It became that way as the Democrats picked up the gun control movement and made it their own, allowing the 'NRA as Hitler' rhetoric to become more common. Calling someone evil and murderers will sometimes push those folks into the arms of someone else.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts