Nolan's Odyssey - or why Conservatism will always lose

I've said many times over the years that there is one thing just as sure as death and taxes.  And it is that at any moment, about 1/3 of conservatives will fall into line with and support, endorse, excuse, or even agree with whatever the Left is doing or pushing.  Not always the same ones about the same issues.  But always about 1/3 can be counted on. 

So Nolan's The Odyssey came out, and almost all was as predicted.  Reviews have been mostly positive (mostly), and among more progressive or leftwing outlets, sometimes near gushing.  A masterpiece, the greatest ever, a new epoch in filmmaking has begun. It's Christian and pagan and rightwing and leftwing and pigs have wings and so on.  Meanwhile, many conservatives and those bothered mostly by the casting - or more importantly, why the casting - have either refused to see it, or did not like what they saw.  

With our postmodern tendencies toward things like film reviews clouding the issue, I won't bother with different aspects of the movie and what was good or bad. That is ever and always a matter of taste and preferences anyway.  And with so much riding on this movie's reputation, it will be tough to sift through how much of it was bona fide love of the product and how much was making sure the product would be loved despite itself.  The opposite being true for its critics.  Though from what I've heard, its various themes are pretty much every message you'd expect from an industry that has put fealty to the post-Western Left at the front and center of its priority list.  As one reviewer said, Nolan's The Odyssey fails to tell us where we came from, but it sure as heck shows us where we're going.  

Which brings us to my favorite group of conservatives.  The ones who will always be there when the Left needs them.  Especially, in this case, regarding the entire DEI mandate that Nolan was, in all likelihood, pandering to with his casting choices.  And that is the big - I mean BIG - issue here.

Those who know me know that I define 'Woke' (a term I don't care for) as the Left basically saying 'you heard post-war liberalism insist our only hope is when we accept that all animals are equal?  Well, we "woke" to how unjust and unfair that is, and now realize it's time to accept that some animals are more equal than others.'

We've seen that play out with 'never judge/you're the problem if you don't judge'; 'violence is never the answer/violence can be a darn good answer'; 'nothing is more sacred than free speech/sometimes we need some good old censorship', and on and on.  But the biggest coup has been 'it's time to stop being bigots and be a color blind society and judge based on content of character/if you're not willing to judge based on ethnic identity or other group identities, you're the bigot.'  

At which point we notice the Academy of Motion Picture's official declaration that henceforth, anyone wanting an Oscar nomination for Best Picture will make sure to cast actors and actresses according to group identity quotas (Bonus: Remember all those years when we were told Affirmative Action would never be about quotas?).  And these quotas include, but are hardly confined to, ethnic identity, skin color, and other accidents of birth.  What would have once been called bigotry or discrimination the way Goebbels used to bake it is now officially sanctioned.  With no pushback from academia, the media, the Democrats, or even no small number of religious traditions. 

It's purposefully eating away at the foundational values, principles, and even laws that have defined America and the trajectory of the overall Western Tradition for generations.  It's serious.  And nobody realizes this more than conservatives.  Heck, one of their favorite shout-outs to President Trump during this most confusing of all presidential terms has been his push back against DEI mandates.  And one of the most flagrant examples of these is the Motion Picture Academy's mandate to cast based on demographic quotas rather than, say, talent.  Something that has been being pushed for years mind you, much to the chagrin of those to the right of center.

Yet despite this, what do we get with The Odyssey?  Conservatives rushing out and giving a rousing thumbs up to the movie!  I know, I know.  So what if Sean Penn is a left of Lenin communist, the man can act!  So what if Oliver Stone would rather the hammer and sickle than the stars and stripes?  He's made some terrific movies.  I get that.

But aside from every other stylistic, messaging, plot or film choices that some may or may not approve, the casting was, again, in line with the Academy's insistence that DEI is alive and well and living through officially sanctioned prejudice and discrimination by group identity. Including ethnicity.  I mean, at what point do you stop saying 'messaging aside, I can't give a big enough thumbs up to Triumph of the Will'?  Sure, you can point out that it is a masterclass in filmmaking, as has always been admitted.  But must we endorse it or promote it or give it a rousing thumbs up?  

All I can say is, if a thumbs up must be given, then let's admit DEI isn't that big of a deal.  Already I've seen some on the Left point that out.  I caught some podcast pop up on that FB podcast section with a young leftwing firebrand saying the same thing.  For all the screams and protests and cheers for Trump's war on DEI, obviously it's not that big of an issue after all.  Just like churches shutting down and banning worship services during Covid.  Apparently not going to church is in no way a deal breaker.  Something non-believers and critics were eager to point out.  Just as I see them doing now about DEI being not so much. And you know what?  They're right. And the next time DEI comes up, I'm sure they'll be there to remind us.  

Divisions can be a "Both Sides" problem

 So I saw this make the rounds:

Basically, erase the FOX News logo and replace it with any other national MSM news outlet, and it's the exact same thing we heard daily during the Biden administration. 

In fact, one of the big laughs my wife and I had in recent years was on election night in 2024.   As it became clear that Trump was going to win, we were watching the ABC election coverage.  During one of the segments they discussed the economy.  One of the commentators said - I kid you not - that because people were struggling with rent and grocery prices it was difficult for them to see how healthy the economy really was.  My wife and I laughed and said 'Gee, people who can't afford food and shelter can't see how strong the economy is? You just can't figure people!'

But that had been the news coverage of the economy the whole Biden term.  So flagrant was it that various outlets would have stories about how to get help with rising grocery prices, or agencies to aid young parents with newborn expenses, or avenues to go for those facing a loss of housing.  Then when it was the economic news proper, Pollyanna was never more optimistic.  It was strong, healthy, wonderful!  Economist were elated, thrilled, excited about the future! 

Likewise, when it came to tackling the pesky inflation that was ravaging the already shattered finances of millions due to Covid, I saw many economists explain that inflation - it's a thing.  But healthy economies are made of more than just, well, grocery prices and inflation.  Just like above. Only this time it's FOX.  

Of course now that same MSM has been zeroing in on every negative spin on the economy for over a year.  Whatever good is happening, the stories always end with the bad.  Just like during Biden, no matter how bad, the stories typically wrapped up with a positive.  An old trick to be sure.  But it points to the bigger problem that it's not so much the suffering of millions that matters, but whether that suffering can be exploited or should merely be ignored.  One that obviously reaches across partisan lines in terms of priorities. Certainly where the modern media is concerned.   

That's why the trick is not to fall for it, or go along with it, just because your guy is in office.  Yes, we all know the thing we used to call the News Media is dead, and won't be coming back any time soon.  But that doesn't mean we should play along.  Because if we do, we're of no real use to anything, much less a Christian witness. 

Sometimes conservatives are their own worst enemies

 I'm not a fan:

I've seen this on several conservative pages over the last week or so.  But I don't like it, for a simple reason.  Because I don't think going up to a lion and punching it in the nose has ever been a good idea.

At the end of the day, conservatives have made it clear they not only have contempt for those who work within the government, and associated institutions like education, but they also proudly boast that the first thing they will do when they have a chance is take a scythe to those jobs and positions and entire industries. So would you believe it? Turns out the majority of people who work in the government, education, and other associated institutions overwhelmingly tack left, support Democrats, espouse leftwing activism and openly hinder where they can anything to do with conservatism.

Going way back to the 90s, when Rush Limbaugh was a big voice for the contempt dumped on our schools and educators, I just shook my head.  If I want to make enemies with a group of people, it's not going to be the ones who get to educate and train the next generations coming our way.  If I do, then I shouldn't be shocked that those generations will be taught to see me and what I hold dear as the enemy.  

Just because I like strategy games doesn't mean I'm fit to lead the 4th Armored Division.  With that said, you still can't help but pick up on a couple basic, common sense strategies. And one is don't make enemies of the ones who can do you the most harm.  

Yet for reasons I can't fathom, conservatives have never tried to assert themselves into these areas, assuring the workers they respect them, espousing the importance of education and respect for those who make our government run.  They never appear eager to go in and point out the excesses they see, while assuring those in the trenches that they are not the enemies and if they simply understand where conservatives are coming from, they'll see why what is happening is happening and may actually begin supporting the cause.  Or let government workers know there are philosophical reasons that a bloated government is no good, but anyone making an honest living and trying to do good by their families is a good guy in our book. Heck no.     

Oh I know, right now President Trump and his team are going about with their winnowing forks and clearing the threshing floor.  But it won't last forever.  And when the inevitable shift occurs, assuming the entire political Left hasn't gone off into the sunset, then it will be a bit like the proverbial spirit having been banished into the outer wilderness for a season, but then returning sevenfold to work even worse harm to the cause than before.  And conservatives will have themselves to thank for making enemies of everyone who works the trenches of the institutions that pave the future of a country and its up and coming generations. 

After all, making enemies of anything government has been a major selling point of conservatives for decades now.  And consider where we have gone as a society.  Think of those photos of the New York skyline displaying three crosses at Easter in the late 1950s, and think of our nation now.  Think of where almost everything in our society has gone that conservatives have been resisting with this basic approach.  I mean, there comes a time when you look at results and just have to question the strategies and tactics involved.  Another thing I've picked up from watching sports or playing strategy games.  If the thing you keep doing causes you to keep losing, even if you have an occasional win here and there, it might be time to try a different approach. 

Yep

 

I would add that Trump is not widely expected to win.  The latest batch of polling shows Trump barely ahead of Biden, and not much different than it has been for much of the year.  A squeak-by advantage well within the margin of error. 

Perhaps that is good news, and shows social and Christian conservatives saying enough.  Maybe Christians and others who value the Life movement are saying , they have debased themselves and held their noses for eight years.  But they will not simply act like sheep and push the appropriate button as Trump moves to diminish opposition to one of the most critical moral crises in modern history. 

Trump was never a conservative by any stretch.  The Left portrayed him, as it does all enemies, as a far right neo-Nazi misogynistic racist.  But in honesty, Trump in many things has been left of center, especially regarding animal pleasures.  Why the sudden party platform shift, I don't know.  I do know I've heard little push-back from conservatives - social, Christian, Catholic or otherwise.  And nothing will play up to the 'lie of the pro-life movement' more than standing by as that movement is chipped away at by the GOP while handing over votes in due order.  

It might just be time that we accept the end of the Christian era and a new phase in the history of the Faithful.  It's not time to compromise the Faith to stay loyal to a party that has never really wanted us in the first place, and increasingly is making that clear under the leadership of Donald Trump. 

Fact

I have said before that a big - and I mean BIG - reason liberalism wins is that those who resist it are often all talk.  I know, we hear 'but conservatives have day jobs' or 'but conservatives are the adults in the room' or 'liberals have unfair advantages because the news media' and such.  

But as often as not, conservatives are big on talk, itty-bitty on actions.  Oh, they may rush out and make a fuss for a day or two.  But at the end of the day, it will be business as usual.  Thus:

Yep.  And that's just one.  Consider the ever present mantra that 'middle America won't sit still for this.'  Sit still for what?  Our FBI has been caught read handed spying on Churches to see what their religious practices and beliefs are.  They are pushing to mutilate the bodes of youth at the hands of state operatives while boldly declaring their aim of blocking parents from stopping them.  They are erasing our heritage and destroying the memorials to those who built our nation. They are openly advocating racial discrimination based on group and ethnic identity.  What exactly is it 'those right wing American rednecks' won't sit still for?   

Whatever it is, apparently it doesn't include ditching a beer brand to make a point.  When you have that lack of conviction and passion, don't expect to win against those who have both. 

Of bread and circuses and convictions

The Right v. the Left

We all know the reference to bread and circuses.  It means providing the masses with superficial appeasement to keep them in check.  Of course in our wealthy, leisurely age, the bread and circuses morphed into sex and drugs.  Mere bread and circuses would not do.  Though in some ways, they do still play a part.  Consider movies or athletics for examples. 

Which brings us to now.  I just did something I've not purposefully done since I graduated OSU in 1990.  That is, I passed on purchasing tickets to this year's Ohio State Buckeyes football season.  Every year, since I was young, I've managed to go to a game, or at least purchase tickets.  Until now. 

Why?  Because first: prices.  The prices are quite staggering for what you get, and at a time when the cost of living is still back breaking, despite media narratives to the contrary.  It used to be if you were an alumnus, each year you got tickets the seats were better, and better, and better.  That stopped years ago.  Alumni means nosebleed.  If you want better, you pay extra, and I mean extra.  Given the spate of significant expenses we've had to absorb this year, can we justify such football tickets? 

Yes.  That would have been my answer in years gone by.  It's not like every year of my life saw me wallowing in endless money.  Nonetheless, I always found a way to pay for at least one game a year.  That way I took each of my sons, and sometimes went with my wife, and even took my mom and dad once.   

But this year?   No.  Ted Cruz said something the other day that I found disappointing.  He said boycotts don't generally work.  That's because people might grind their teeth and fuss, but in the end they'll be right back at the ticket counters putting money into the organizations' bank accounts, no matter what.  

Which really isn't true.  It tends to be true for conservatives, not liberals.  Liberals will declare unholy jihad when told, and burn the organization to the ground.  I remember that with the Chick fil-A debacle back in the day.  When the LGBTQ community began going after CFA, some within their ranks would say they still loved the food, but didn't like the establishment's bigotry.  But after a few years, you couldn't find anyone in that movement not wanting to burn CFA to the ground.  And if someone dared cross the battleline and order a chicken sandwich?  Retaliation was sift and merciless.  I'm recalling when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey mistakenly ordered a CFA sandwich during June one year.  He quickly repented his grave sin. 

So no, such boycotts and tactics work like a charm - for liberalism.  Just see the morphing of CFA.  That's because liberalism is a revolution, a new religion, a movement.  It has specific dogmas.  It has clear promises.  It has convictions.  It is prepared to do whatever to win.  If you're part of it, you're part of it top to bottom.  And you have the passion, zeal and fanaticism that goes with such revolutionary movements.

Conservatives?  Not so much.  When conservatives do move, it's often by those we normally wouldn't want representing the cause.  That's because the bulk of conservatives see what's happening as not worth giving up the game for, or giving up the movie experience for, or giving up our favorite restaurant for, or giving up that precious Netflix binging for, or whatever.  We're Rocky in Rocky III.  The Left is Clubber Lang.   

So I looked at what OSU has become.  I recall the recent OSU president sending endless messages to the student body, trashing conservatives, Trump and anything right of center.  I think on OSU moving as radical left of Stalin as the left will go.  I think of my son, working hard to achieve the highest honors in his degree, finding out that OSU will not recognize such accomplishments during graduation on the off chance it hurts someone's feelings.  Because we can't get enough of being a loser country filled with losers.  

True, during the Kaepernick kerfuffle, the OSU teams did not take part, and that is a feather in their cap.  But that doesn't offset the fact that OSU is actively against what I value.  When I was in college?  Sure, every professor was left of center.  But the school was still a school.  Those debates were in the class, not presented with official OSU president's letterhead. OSU wasn't in front of the cameras jockeying for the USSR (no matter how many would have liked to).   It was not an indoctrination camp.  Free speech and the free exchange of ideals were still promoted in and out of the classrooms.  In fact, per my sons, the school itself was worse than most of their classes.  

So for the first time in my adult life, I passed.  No tickets this year.  Yes, staggering inflation and cost of living would make it tough.  But in years past I would have pulled strings to make it work.  Not now.  Until conservatives take a stand and stop watching the movies, and frequenting the stores, and following the teams, and given money to those forces that want us and our values erased, we will lose.  If that's what we choose, let's just hope for the sake of our grandchildren that the movies and games and menus were worth it. 

The only way to win

Why I'd generally prefer to have a liberal on my side when playing a strategy game

I saw this story about Elon Musk slamming those who want to work from home.  In a strange way, this is something that both sides appear to oppose.  When the lockdowns happened, many legions of workers had to work from home.  Happened in our house, and in households around America.

Well, one of the first things to go with the passing lockdowns was tolerance for this work at home culture.  Now I have no doubt that, with work ethics being what they are, in some cases productivity suffered from this work at home movement.  But I also know in other cases it didn't.  I know, as in my wife's department, productivity increased because most liked working at home and worked their tails off to show it could be beneficial to the company.   Plus, my wife's level of title and those around her means they spend much time meeting with people from almost anywhere in the world not down the street.  So where they actually are physically doesn't matter. 

Nonetheless, it's clear from media reporting on this subject that most to the left don't like this.  Why?  I don't know.  I have a feeling there is something rather freeing and family focused with people liking to be home.  They like being away from the mandated cattle herding.  They enjoy not having to turn the kids over to state regulated daycares at the age of six months forward. Something about that goads the modern Left. 

But why are conservatives against it?  Again, if productivity suffered I can see laying out an ultimatum that you'll get your act together or else back to the office.  But otherwise?  Why are conservatives assuming the worst from people who want to work from home?  Many of these workers, when asked, have said they like being home, close to the kids, allowing the kids to stay home and not be shoved into a daycare center to be taught by minimum wage workers.  They feel it has helped their families, their kids, and their overall priorities. 

Why are conservatives against this?  Shouldn't they be the ones charging forth and saying 'You're darn right, if the job allows and you are productive, you should be close to home, close to the family, close to kids. After all, we value those things!'

Instead, most conservative responses are right there with the liberals.  Only in the case of conservatives, it appears to be some 'only slipshod lazy loafers want to stay home because they're losers' reasoning.  No consideration for the family/kids angle.  In fact, in a few cases where I've seen people bring the issue up in an online discussion, the conservative response has been the classic Limbaugh principle: if you want to work at home, become a corporate mogul and you can do anything.  Otherwise, suck on it and put those kids in the daycares and get to the office since you're probably a slothful ne'er-do-well in the first place.'

I've never seen a movement more willing to shoot itself in the foot, and shoot one another, and destroy its own principles and values, than modern conservatism.  Conservatives often talk about liberalism coming after them to destroy what conservatives value.  I don't think the Left needs to. It merely needs to stand aside and let conservatives do all the heavy lifting where destroying conservative values and priorities is concerned. 

For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.  Luke 16.8b

In follow up to my Greydanus post

 I was sent this:

Here's the thing.  I don't like the humor.  I don't like making fun of someone - and that's what it's doing - for something they can't help.  I know, he didn't have to run for office knowing full well the problems involved.  And that decision to push forward in the campaign despite the high likelihood of what we've seen happen is a fair debate.  I also know that it is 100% impossible to have a fair debate with progressives.  Even if you tried to lay it out in the most respectable manner, for daring to point out the obvious you'd be accused of hating disabled people or wanting them killed.

Nonetheless, I say we should do what Michelle Obama only spoke of doing, and that's take the higher ground.  Especially since, as Christians, that's part and parcel of the whole Jesus game.  Plus, it does no good to lower ourselves to their standards.  One, we don't have the institutions behind us to cover our tracks.  And two, we lose any moral high ground since actually having consistent morals is supposed to be one of our selling points.  It certainly separates us from the Left's here today, gone yesterday approach to morals. 

With that said, once again we see Greydanus's slip into the cesspool of leftwing rhetorical tricks.  Having spent my life listening to liberals mock and deride elderly Republicans, mock their misfortunes, and sometimes even mock them for their own handicaps (I recall George Clooney once mocking Charlton Heston's Alzheimer's - something I am no fan of at all), it's the height of disingenuousness to make such a partisan swipe.  It suggests strongly that it's not making fun of disabilities that is the problem, but who is doing the making fun of that is the problem.  

Had he simply called this out and said it was in bad taste, then no problem.  I would agree. But he then pulls a favorite tactic of the Left of using a single event to tarnish the entire pool of political opponents.  Perhaps he is so deeply lazy into his partisanship that he didn't bother to see if such rhetoric has been employed by his allies on the Left.  To be honest he would have to have lived in a hole for these last several decades to miss it.

Otherwise, he knows it's true and doesn't care because it's his side doing it.  Or he knows it's true and, like so many in our tutorial class today, is banking on his readers' own lazy ignorance so as not to be called out.  In any event, it's once again a bad look from someone who used to be one of the good guys.   

Why orthodox Christians putting their hope in the GOP is a profitless endeavor.

Exhibit A.

Of course the problem isn't the bill, which goes out of its way to enshrine gay marriage as a core American value.  It's that it accepts the premise that once you let those rascally conservative republicans do something like limit abortion rights, the next thing you'll have is lynchings and gas chambers and women dying in back allies and tortured homosexuals.  That's what this bill was all about, riding that wave of media hysteria that claimed with Roe overturned, the next thing they'll do is go after gays, interracial marriages, and other nasty things. 

The idea that 'once a conservative wins, the universe is that much closer to exploding' is an oft invoked media narrative.  Time and again whenever the press reports on a conservative proposal, it's framed as either an immediate threat to various groups, or a stepping stone toward Jim Crow, swastikas and pogroms.

The Republicans who voted for this are either too thick to know this, or they don't care because they are no more conservative than Bernie Sanders.  Or, like many conservatives, they operate on the idea that if we just insist we're not like those nasty racist sexist bigot conservatives over there, they'll like us - they'll really, really like us!  Foolishness of the highest order.

In any event, the GOP is all there is for those who don't want to support a party beholden to the secular paganism of the global Left.  Those who don't want to crawl into a cell and let the world burn that is.  Because the Left is a movement increasingly clear in its designs to destroy liberty, freedom, equality and the sanctity of life.  

Nonetheless, never forget how flawed this alliance is for those who seek the right means to the right ends.  At best it is the least of the evils.  At worst it's a terrible and ultimately fruitless waste of time. 

I'm not surprised

As I said here, this is why I have only passing allegiance to the GOP.  Much of the GOP operates on the same trajectory as the Democrats.  Wealth, power, worldly pleasure - that's the motivation.  I would never say they all go this way.  But enough do as to make the GOP a very unreliable ally in any fight, much less the important fights. 

The problem isn't sanctioning the gay marriage branch of the post-Christian sexual revolution.  Hey, last year the lion's share of new HIV cases was once again homosexual men.  No biggie.  The press will barely mention it.  Try to bring that into the discussion and watch how fast you are targeted and attacked.  We continue plodding along as suicides spike, STDs are on the rise, and millions continue to get infected or die from AIDS while millions of more lives are ruined from our age of Sodom and Gomorrah debauchery.  But those are small beans since the World has made these problems small beans compared to an unrestrained sex life.  

The real story here is that the Mormon Church buckled and caved.  When the Left is becoming more naked in its designs, and more appalling in its agendas, more and more defenders of the virtues and heritage of the Christian Faith are surrendering.  Years ago when it was just 'gee, can't we agree that homosexuality is completely normal', these people were willing to hit the beaches to resist.

Now they're caving before the idea that standing in the way of unlimited abortion must mean homosexual marriages is next.  And we can't have that!  This is the same movement that is pushing the mutilation of teenager's bodies over a crackpot psych agenda that insists anyone should be celebrated for their personal versions of truth, but we really need counseling to get us through the terror of Cicada Stress Syndrome.  As a former supporter of, and worker within, the mental health arenas of society, I freely admit it's gone off the rails and has become a major player behind the darkness we're seeing.  

Of course this legislation is less about protection gay or interracial messaging as much as reinforcing the narrative that pure evil is resisting any dogma of the Left.  Remember, this legislation came about after Roe was struck down by the Supreme Court. The premise being that if you let liberalism fail even once, then it's national lynchings and sanctioned rape cultures and gas chambers and Matthew Shepherds on a daily basis.  You are either 100% to the Left, or you are guilty of, and desire, all evils imaginable.  Each GOP senator, and the Mormon Church, approves this message.  That is, if they've even bothered to think it through beyond simply caving. 

When I was growing up, we watched those old black and white news reels of Nazi Germany and wonder how the German people could be swept up in such madness.  We used to watch and wonder why Germans who knew better didn't stand up to the clear and obvious evils sweeping their nation.  Well, now we know.  As my son has said that with each passing day it becomes easier to sympathize with those Germans who lived through the 1930s.  

Not what conservatives need

Representatives like Sarah Palin.  She was done dirty by the press, I'll admit.  But since then she's done nothing but confirm the insults and mockery aimed at her.  Her instance on answering any question with ''I'm just a mamma grizzly' was one in a long line of actions that solidified the Left's contempt for her, and made defending her all the more difficult. 

Here, she's reported to openly flaunt Covid restrictions by eating out a mere two days after testing positive.  Even with Omicron, the standard is five days if symptom free. Now, I'm the last one to say I agree with the way Covid has been handled.  And it isn't hard to see that much of what is happening has more to do with control and money, and far less to do with our well being.

Nonetheless, that doesn't give me or anyone a blank check to do anything we feel like doing.  As I have said, Covid is unlike anything I ever had.  It's a bugger to get, and we count ourselves blessed by having been infected by a lesser strain of the virus, if this is what the lesser strain is like.  Hopefully the resistance from this infection will match others, and will go toward that immunity down the road.

I wouldn't wish it on anyone, however.  A month later and we still have slight traces of the thing.  If she has tested positive, then the basic, decent, common sense, humane response is to avoid others.  If I get the flu, I don't run to the theater or the health club.  I  stay home and avoid my family and friends.  That's because I don't want to infect anyone.  Ancient wisdom and common good thinking that still works. 

This is clearly 'flaunt the rules' thinking, hoping conservatives will cheer her on. Oh, she may infect others, but what of it?  She's sticking it to the Left!  No.  She's being, for want of a better word, a jerk.  Some day conservatives will figure out how to fight to win, not fight to live up to the negative stereotypes. 

I hate this so much

 But he's right, as far as his being right goes:

True, Mark seems to ignore the myriad cases of leftwing assaults on the meaning of Christmas.  But in this case, he's correct.  This is every bit as bad as any commercial or worldly exploitation of Christmas.  It's as bad as a series of commercials some years ago that featured a guy in a Santa Clause outfit pushing male enhancement paraphernalia.  

I'm quite the fan of President Reagan.  I don't think he was always right, but I think he was a great president.  Likewise I absolutely support the 2nd Amendment and the right to defend ourselves.  But I would never say 'God, Guns, and Reagan. THAT'S what Christmas is all about'. I wouldn't have said that before I became a Christian!  I certainly wouldn't condone it today.

Let's try to be more careful if we are serious about stopping the waves of crazy that are covering our modern world.  Things like this aren't just bad because they give ammo to those pushing the crazy.  They're bad because they're wrong.  And being on the side of right doesn't give us the right to do wrong.

Could John Stossel please stand over there?

Way, way, way, way over there?  I mean, over somewhere east of Madagascar.  Here's why.  Stossel shot to prominence in the 90s when he produced a news special that outraged feminists by insisting men and women are different. That was good.  News specials that point out common sense and reality in an age that values neither have their place and are good. 

Over the years he became a sort of libertarian spokesman, appearing on Fox News and espousing a libertarian spin on things, often to a fault.  Now if libertarianism is anything, it isn't easy to pin down.  I think if I asked twenty libertarians to define libertarianism, I would get nineteen definitions, since there's always that one person who will jump in with someone else. 

That has been used to devastating effect by those opposed to liberty libertarianism.  It's always easy to pick the worst apples to condemn a whole barrel.  That tactic is made easier, however, when each apple insists its way is the true way of the barrel.   So people against liberty libertarianism have often found the worst representatives of that particular way of thinking and made quite a lot of noise about that being what libertarianism is all about. 

Like anything, libertarianism has its bad actors, its radicals, extremists, and those you wish would never be within a hundred miles of anything you're advocating.  Stossel has emerged as one of those bad actors.  Embracing an almost caricature of what people criticize libertarianism for, he often spends his time smacking down any and all criticisms of anything done the way it's done because, well, liberty?  

Let people imagine that legalizing drugs may not help our drug problem, and it' just crazy old wives tales. Let people suggest that maybe STEM has had a few bumps in the road, and he preaches the sacred doctrine of progressive infallibility louder than a progressive.  Imagine someone thinking that maybe there should be some level of accountability for people to use guns beyond just the standard hunting/home defense instruments, and you'd think you just proclaimed worship of Big Brother.

Beyond that, he also embraces that Darwinian Capitalism idea of survival of the best.  This world is for the strong, the smart, the best.  Those who aren't up to that level of made-to-win, who aren't willing to invest themselves solely in the acquisition of things to the exclusion of any other priority?  Well suck on it buster brown.  

Some years ago, when I still had cable, I was sometimes guilty of channel surfing.  Always with the volume muted of course.  Contrary to some common accusations, I didn't watch much cable news, and that included Fox News.  One night I was clicking down the list and I passed Fox.  Stossel was interviewing someone, and the little ticker underneath said something to the effect of 'Teaching children that sharing is wrong.'  I thought 'Oh brother, one of those news segments that finds some crazy person out there and makes a national crisis out of it.  Some bonehead teacher said sharing is bad, and Fox is going to whip up the hysterics like the Daytime Talk Shows of old.'  

But no.  Just because of morbid curiosity, I unmuted the show and to my astonishment, they were saying no such thing.  The guest interviewed by Stossel was saying that isn't right to teach kids to share.  Screw sharing.  You teach those kids to extract that last drop of blood from anyone nearby. You have two chocolate bars and a friend asks to share?  Screw them.  You give it to them at top market value.  You have a couple toys and a buddy wants to share, you demand payback first.  Someone asks you for a cloak?  Why, you squeeze every penny out of them, that's what you do.  I couldn't tell from the part I watched if Stossel was in agreement, but if he was offended, he didn't make much noise about it with the part I watched. 

Which is why this piece, as troubling as it is, doesn't shock me.  Apparently Stosssel has joined the movement to use STEM the way nature intended, and that's to build the better baby.  That would be the 'aren't we entirely better than ever before' strain of his libertarianism coming out in him.  After all, we can do it and that means we should do it.  Yes kiddies, as this piece suggests, that could be categorized under eugenics without much difficulty.  And yet it is in no way inconsistent with the brand of libertarian thinking he, and others, espouse. 

Warning for libertarians and especially conservatives.  You can't stop everyone who may agree with you sometimes from embracing evil, but you can check who you associate with.  Many who aligned with, and even identified as, conservatives over the decades espoused things hell and gone from basic conservative decency and virtue, let along Christian morals.  Work is important.  Responsibility is important.  Earning your way and taking care of yourself and your loved ones are important.  

But saying the world belongs to the wealthy and strong and sorry about your luck if you/'re not one of them is closer to Mammon than the Messiah.  It's also a good way to turn off the masses, most of whom will not chair Microsoft, found Amazon.com, contemplate the Theory of Relativity, or form a world changing music group with four lads from Liverpool.  If you act as if the world belongs only to those who do such things, you're saying a microscopic sampling of humanity is ultimately in your corner.  Leaving the masses to look for someone who at least pretends to care about them. 

One thing that cost Hillary Clinton the election in 2016, beyond just running a embarrassingly bad and smug campaign, was her being linked to the Left's new 'the wrong industries will just have to suffer' ideals.  That led people in those industries, many who never voted Red in their lives, to support the man - Donald Trump - who at least said he cared.  Many accused Trump of lying and not caring.  Possibly.  But for many in those industries, they took their chances with a potential liar who may not care over someone telling the truth about how much they didn't care. 

Same with conservatives. Most probably don't want socialism, and wouldn't take it if they thought about it.  But if all they're told is they deserve what they get and deserve even less unless they can make it to the top of the hill, they'll at least try their hand with the socialists who insist they're there to help, no matter how false such a claim happens to be.   And if your solution is to use STEM to start building the better babies so everyone can be the next best and brightest, you're not learning a thing from history you insist is so important to study. 

There is no Woke capitalism

There is only Capitalism.  As I've been told a million times over the years, it's the bottom line.  Why do businesses meet added expenses born of government regulation by screwing their employees?  It's the bottom line.  Why do businesses meet the burden of taxation by cutting quantity and diminishing quality?  It's the bottom line.  The bottom line doth solve a multitude of problems. 

Well, I suppose it's time to admit the obvious.  Why is corporate America at the vanguard of the movement to destroy America, the Western Christian tradition and its values, and even ideas of equality, liberty and democracy?  Well my friends, I guess it's the bottom line. 

At some point, corporate execs and bean counters ran the numbers and realized there's more money to be made sucking up to tyranny and totalitarianism and appealing to people who want to see America and the West burn, than there is trying to preserve those same traditions.  And since conservatives have sanctified the bottom line as the end all 'get out of jail free' card for whatever corporations do, it's hard now to hear them bemoan what is logical per their own sanctioning of corporate decision making.  

Why are corporations promoting racism, tyranny, censorship, group identity, and a basic assault on America's history and the heritage of the Judeo-Christian West?  Because that's where the money is.  That precious bottom line.  

So by now, if we are clever, we'd start thinking long and hard about how long this has been the case.  How many things did conservatives of old cherish that the corporate interest concluded had to go?  Ross Douthat ponders the relationship between Capitalism and Conservatism.  

I'm no economist, so I can't speak to the details.  I can, however, admit that the problems conservatives are now struggling with as the corporate interests they have so long defended turns on them, are problems that are nothing new.  It's just now, they're more obvious than ever. 

Why conservatism never wins

Because, well, define conservative.  I remember ages ago, in the stone age of higher education, we used to have 'comment boards'.  Those were bulletin boards where people would post an article or even write up a little paper, tack it to the board, and await comments.  One I recall was a story about how Scottish Fundamentalists had derided Jerry Falwell as a liberal.  I knew then that the term 'liberal' no longer had any meaning.  Conservative, too.

Donald McCleary, at the always interesting and informative The American Catholic, had this little reminder about why conservatism is a doomed alliance for Christians.  Not because of any evil or wicked conspiracy to destroy.  It's just that change, as they say, is inevitable.  So with each passing generation, what conservative means changes as new generations seek to 'conserve' entirely new understandings of what needs conserving. 

My oldest son, who had flirted with a career in politics, noticed that.  Since he takes his Catholic faith pretty seriously, he couldn't align with the Democrats, though he didn't say they were always wrong about everything.  Nonetheless, he felt the Republican Party was the better bet, all things considered.  Yet as he mixed and mingled, he noticed something.  Beyond the obvious, that many in the GOP are no more conservative than a liberal Democrat, he noticed many who called themselves conservative weren't what you would think was conservative at all.  This was especially true among the younger conservative Republican sector.

Many his age or thereabouts had no problem with LGBTQ interests or gay marriage.  They might oppose abortion, but to a limited degree.  Or they may be more open to it.  Perhaps socialism does work in some cases.   America is and always has been a racist nation, that much is true.  And on and on.   These were, again, the ones his age who wore the label 'conservative GOP' with honor. 

That's because that's what they've been born and raised into.  They may not go crazy communist or want America and the Christian West burned to the ground.  That's how they understand themselves as conservative.  But the conservatism they espouse are things that may well have shamed a 1960's counterculture hippie broadening his mind at Haight and Ashbury. After all, to many my sons' age, what us old timers call radical left is as 'status quo' as a tent revival was in the 1920s.  

That's why conservatism loses.  At the end of the day, it sees itself all too often as merely conservative compared to the liberalism it opposes.  That is, it stays firmly three steps behind and four years away from liberalism.  But as liberalism, or change, or progress, moves inevitably farther and farther away from today, the conservative inevitably moves, too.  He may still be three steps behind, but now he's five miles away from what older conservatives ever would have identified with.  He's still conservative compared to the liberals he sees, but he misses that the conservatism he's defending would likely have been too liberal even for yesterday's liberals. 

By the by, that might also explain why so many from my Protestant days who aligned so strongly with the Religious Right and conservative Republicans are the ones partying at gay wedding receptions and calling down religious liberty as the systemically white racist trick that it is.  They're still conservative Christians. And they're doing what conservative Christians do, and that's conserve.  It's just that they're now conserving what they and most 20 years ago would have condemned.  Such is conservatism in a nutshell. 

Blame Mitch McConnell

I'm sure, like anything in history except the American Civil War, there were many factors and causes behind what happened yesterday.  But let's face it, the GOP has forever been the party of 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.'  

The odds were already stacked in the Democrats' favor.  You had two sub-par GOP candidates to  begin with, plus one with a fair share of ethical 'indiscretion' charges buzzing about.  You also had a Democrat juggernaut and leftists superstar in Stacy Abrams (who the Left/Press would obviously love to see in the Oval Office someday), pulling the strings.  Then you had 2020, Covid, and the idea that all rules and standards are now out the window, and out of dumb, blind luck, the changes all go to the advantage of Democrats.

Even with political acumen that would shame Metternich, the GOP would have had an uphill climb.  So it should come as no surprise that, with this high of deck stacked against it, the GOP was all but torpedoed when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stepped in and did one of the lamest, stupidest, and most disastrous political maneuvers I've ever witnessed.

Now I've watched conservatives and Republicans (not always the same) do this sort of thing for most of my life.  Once Reagan left, conservatives lost their last political party.  No small number of Republicans would gladly see those Jesus freaks and other social traditionalist wackos head for the hills.  Since then it's been a battle for who gets the Republican compass, often seeing the worst extremes of various sides having the loudest say - and often aided by the media always trying to play up the bad press for the GOP.

So I get that those of more libertarian leanings wouldn't support a massive government bailout with no clear way of paying for itself.  I understand that it's key in conservative circles to pine for a smaller, less intrusive government.  I know conservatives fancy themselves as the ones advocating personal responsibility and accountability in life; to roll up the sleeves, grab the boot straps, and overcome whatever comes our way.

And there is nothing wrong with these things.  I support them too, at least to a point.  But here's the thing.  When fighting on philosophical or principled grounds, do the fighting up front.  Especially where the government is concerned.  If you don't want the government interfering, then take the slings and arrows of a hostile news media and stand your ground months ago and prevent the government from swooping in and wrecking the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans.  That's when you fight, at whatever cost to your reputation, your political career, or your ability to attend the best parties with the Washington elite.

You do not - repeat, not, that is not, ever not - decide that the time to take the stand is after you've been defeated, after you acquiesced, after you went ahead and pushed through legislation that stands against your values, after you've conceded one loss after another, and then demonstrate your resolve by torpedoing the one part of a bloated government overreach that could actually help individual Americans hurt by your inability to keep the government from hurting them.  Bad optics doesn't begin to describe it. 

This is when you stand up and say something along the following: 

"We labor continuously to prevent America from slipping into yet another failed socialist state of the kind we've witnessed all too often.  To that end, we did attempt to find more constructive, targeted and beneficial ways to fight the onslaught of the Coronavirus while minimizing the harm done to millions of Americans in the process.  Nonetheless, we were unable to stop some of the worst examples of government intrusion and oppression we've witnessed in our lifetime.  While we continue to stand firm on the principles of small government and the freedom of Americans to pursue their own ends, we realize our failure resulted in a massive government driven overreach that has devastated the lives of millions who have done nothing wrong other than live in our country during such a time as this.  Despite such a measure cutting against our core values as this legislation, we understand our failure should not be resolved on the backs of those who were harmed by our government's lack of control or vision.  Therefore, we will stop any unnecessary spending, exploitation or agendas in the form of massive bailouts for international or corporate interests, but will ensure that the spending we do endorse at this point goes directly to those businesses, institutions and families who have been harmed by our inability to stand firm when we should have done so."

Or something along those lines.  Not 'We'll go ahead and push through whatever spending there is, but by golly, now we will take a stand that will only devastate the lives of millions of schmucks who didn't have the good sense of becoming millionaires, since that's the type of bold sacrifice we crave!'   As long as Republicans act as if there is no limit to the lives of other dolts they're willing to sacrifice so they don't have to take the big stands that might compromise their popularity inside the Beltway, expect more of what we saw in Georgia yesterday. 

The birth of Jesus has served its purpose

Yep.  It's that time of year again, when we can stop wasting time with that Jesus born in a manger rubbish and get on with the next consumer feeding frenzy.  

I love the two shoppers looking at the paltry remnants on the shelves.  It's as if the store is saying, "Sorry about your luck, but you should have given a damn about Jesus a week ago when it was good for the bottom line!"

Ages from now conservatism's blind, slavish devotion to corporate interests and board room priorities in the name of defending Capitalism and the Free Market will be seen as one of the great strategic blunders of human history.  A free market is one thing.  A soulless consumerism that becomes so jaded it can watch corporate interests piss all over the sacred and virtuous for a buck is a threat to our most cherished values.  The result of ignoring this fact speaks for itself as we watch corporatism emerge as one of the single greatest threats to all we hold dear that we've ever encountered.  

The NFL continues to flip off its fans and America

Believing it knows the way the wind is blowing, the NFL's branch of  the new oligarchy has decided to continue flipping the bird to its base and the country in which it exists.  It can tell a dying giant when it sees one.  

The hilarious part is that it won't allow performances of the National Anthem due to Covid-19.  I have no clue what that means.  In college football, the National Anthem is typically performed by marching bands.  OK, close quarters I guess.  But in the NFL, it's typically a lone singer or performer.  How does a single performer singing in an almost empty football stadium spread Covid? 

Answer: it doesn't.  America's capitalist oligarchy has fulfilled the ancient prophecy that capitalism without Christ is no better than communism.  In fact, our beloved corporate world is becoming one of the biggest boons for America's communist inspired revolution.  And I don't just mean those rascally zillion dollar corporations either.  All around us, businesses big and small are pledging fealty to BLM, decrying our genocidal racist state and its repulsive Christian values, supporting the eradication of the Christian West, and anything not in line with the emerging Leftist State.  

I used to say you don't need to ban freedom of the press when the press willingly jumps on board with the power of the State.  Same here.  The Free Market and Capitalism cease having meaning when the benefactors of those very principles become the biggest threats to those same principles.  Who needs socialism, after all, if corporate America willingly declares itself the fourth branch of a totalitarian government? 

The worthless and treacherous Republican Party

In one thing Mark Shea was right.  Fools who kept supporting the Republican party as if the GOP gave a rip about anything conservatives or Christians cared about were fools indeed.

Nothing has shown the wisdom of Mark's insight more than the last few weeks.  Almost overnight, the GOP has gone from stunned silence to embracing the Marxist driven narratives and revolution to overthrow America and the Christian West.

So it's the GOP - that's the GOP - proposing we ban Columbus Day, and replace it with Juneteenth (the celebration of the end of slavery focusing not at all on anything white Americans did to end it).  That's the GOP.  The ones conservatives and traditionalists and others who love our country thought they could count on to defend our country, its traditions, its heroes, it heritage.   The more I watch the GOP cave, surrender and betray, the more I think of this scene from the movie Braveheart:

In his fight against William Wallace, King Edward I thinks he has the Irish on his side when lo, the rascally Irish stop and shake hands with Wallace.  Sometimes you just can't count on people to stay loyal.  A lesson played out more than once over the course of human history.

That's what we're seeing now.  As if to say, "Whew, thank  goodness we can stop the charade.  Now we can finally trash this pissy country and its pissy heritage and its pissy Christians and get with the powers and money changers at the new Marxist parties with the T&A", the GOP is showing themselves for what they've been for decades. 

People say 'But the party of Reagan!'.  Here's the dirty secret.  It was never the party of Reagan, as Bush, Sr. made clear when he immediately began trying to distance himself from Reagan's brand of conservatism.  It begrudgingly chocked down those hayseeds and religious hicks at voting time, but were happy to vomit them out time and again between election cycles.  Since Bush's time, it's been one long, slow betrayal after betrayal until now they're finally showing their faces.

The shock is that we still imagined the GOP, if it didn't care about the social and religious conservative side, still cared about America.  In a pinch, we still imagined the GOP would rise to the occasion and rally with others out to defend the heritage of the civilization that brought human rights, democracy, freedom and the dignity of the human person to the world.  Boy were we wrong.   Happy 4th of July. 

As of now, the GOP will get no more votes of mine.  For all that he became, you have to give credit where it is due.  When it comes to what the GOP was and has been for years, Mark Shea was very, very right.

Attention Conservatives: Remember Joycelyn Elders?

Yes, her.  She was the first black [check] woman [check] to be Surgeon General.  Appointed by Bill Clinton, she was a walking gaffe machine.  At least for back in the day, when we still believed in boys and girls and thought  handing condoms to children might not be a good thing.  Today she would no doubt receive prestigious awards for her keen insights.

But back then, she became a burden for the Clinton administration, even with a sympathetic media trying to help.  Things came to a head when, during a congressional hearing, she made a shocking claim about AIDS and Cancer research funding.  People were starting to ask why so much time and money was going to AIDS research when cancer and heart disease kill so many more in a year.  Her answer?  Easy.  Heart disease and cancer tend to kill the elderly who have already lived their lives.  AIDS hits the young people who have yet to live.

Wow.  I remember the storms of outrage.  Even Democrats and liberals I knew ran for cover.  Attempts were made to mitigate the impact of what she said, but to no avail.  You just couldn't gloss over the almost calculated, Orwellian sound to her 'Old Major has just got to go' statement.  Conservatives had her by the throat.  Her days were numbered.

You can see where this is going. More and more I'm hearing conservatives talk about Covid-19 and the fact that it mainly impacts the elderly and the medically compromised.  And who do they sound like when they bring this up?  Why, Ms. Joycelyn Elders, that's who.  I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about it in a way that was almost syllable to syllable what she said.  Others on the internet are picking up on this, even going so far as saying the elderly are going to die anyway, why hurt our businesses and incomes to stop the inevitable?

I know, there will be people rush in an explain why this is different.  It isn't.  And it's a glaring warning about the Faithful cleaving too closely to a secular movement, conservative, liberal or otherwise.  If conservatives were rightly outraged at the idea that stopping AIDS is more important than cancer or heart disease research because those impact the elderly, then don't turn on a dime and use the same argument when it comes to salvaging the economy and opening up businesses.  Just don't.