If Cognitive Dissonance Were Real, There Would Be No Liberals

Over at The Onion AV Club, they’ve reviewed the movie version of Ender’s Game (a book I have never read and have no opinion of, for the record).  The review’s second sentence contains this gem:

Though it can’t overcome the source material’s problematic themes—namely, Card’s intentionalist morality, which prizes a character’s ideals over their actions

Here’s how it ends:

Though [the director] significantly compresses the source novel’s epilogue and simplifies its background politicking and violence, he retains the central idea that makes Card’s book so troublesome. Ender is portrayed as a tragic superman who possesses immense destructive power, but can never be held accountable for his actions. He is a victim-hero who can do evil, but remains morally unblemished because of his good intentions—a characterization that appeals to the closet fascist lurking inside every angry teenage boy.

This from a site composed entirely of loudmouthed, proselytizing liberals (BIRM 2x, I know) who no doubt think Healthcare.gov is a roaring success.

If cognitive dissonance were actually a thing, liberals would’ve hemorrhaged themselves into extinction long ago.

Smellin’ the Weimar: “Third Parties Don’t Work in Our System”

[This started out as a reply to Robert Mitchell Jr. (whose comments I really appreciate for keeping me on my toes), but as it expanded I thought it belonged up here].

One big objection to my “Weimar America” idea is the two-party system.  We’ve never gone in for the continental parliamentary nonsense that lets fringe whackadoodle parties sneak a member or two into our governing bodies.  This prevents the rise of a fascist party in America.

There are three assumptions here that need to be examined.  The first is that one party or the other won’t simply become fascist.  I actually have a harder time arguing for this point, because I think it has more or less already happened.  To both parties.  Fascism, you’ll recall, is state socialism.  It’s a split-the-difference “third way” between, on the one hand, syndicalism and / or the vanguard of the proletariat and, on the other, the primitive laissez-faire capitalism that characterized the pre-WWI United States and was responsible, in the minds of almost all educated people, for the Depression.  It tries to harness the productive power of big business to socially beneficial ends.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini

If that doesn’t sound familiar, ask President Obama, or, as I sometimes like to call him, the CEO of General Motors.  Or ask any lefty — they’ll happily tell you all about the GOP’s precise position in Big Business’s pocket.  Watch out for flying spittle.

In fact, this seems to be at least part of the problem.  Much as I hate to agree with Il Duce, the F-word seems to exclude everything but torchlight parades and concentration camps in most people’s minds.  But it’s crucial to remember that fascism was, and is, an economic system.  The fascist wants to restructure the people’s relationship to the means of production as radically as any Marxist.  The only real difference between a fuhrer and a vanguard of the proletariat is that the vanguard pretends he’s just a way station on the road to the classless society.  At least give Hitler and Mussolini points for honesty — they’re at the top by design.

Here in Weimar America, both parties have accepted that they’re just stewards of the welfare state.  Mitt Romney was actually sold to conservative voters as a better manager of a smaller, more efficient version of Obamacare.  This, we were told, was federalism in action.  I think another f-word is much more appropriate.

Nor are such ideological takeovers unprecedented.  Mr. Mitchell himself cites one — the communist takeover of the Democratic Party.  I’m not sure I’d go so far as that — though come to think of it, I am basically arguing that both parties have become fascist — but it’s certainly true that the old “Scoop Jackson Democrats” (or whatever) were driven out in a cloud of bong smoke sometime in the mid-Sixties.  As the “progressive” Republicans were driven out by old money back in the 1910s.  And the “Barnburner” Democrats by the slave power conspiracy in the 1840s.  And so forth.  Parties undergo wide ideological swings pretty frequently, complete with purges.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the anti-fascists were the ones driven out of one party or the other, and forced to go it alone in the electoral wilderness.

Which leads to the second assumption that needs probing.  Third parties actually do have a pretty successful track record in American politics.  The Republicans, for instance, were one of many fringe reform parties in the 1850s.  They were successful because they articulated an ideology that many Americans instinctively subscribed to, but which no other party embodied.

Poll after poll, study after study shows widespread public dissatisfaction with Obamacare, with open borders, with endless neo-colonial wars, with cultural libertinism, with political correctness, with the whole degrees-and-debt shebang.  And yet neither party plays to these voters — who might actually be the majority of all voters in the country.  And when a movement arises that seems to articulate these values, both parties attack it.

Why would they do that, if the party system actually represented the will of the people?

The Republican Party arose under exactly those conditions.  Though they kept it out of their discourse as much as possible — and spoke only in euphemisms when forced to discuss it — the Democrats in the 1850s were obviously the pro-slavery party.  The Whigs were the feckless opposition, characterized almost entirely by their lack of character.  Sound familiar?

Moreover, third parties have been quite successful at the local and state level.  (Hell, at the national level, too — ask Bill Clinton what he thinks about Ross Perot, for instance).  The few liberals who know anything about history like to throw the Know-Nothing Party around as an example of the Republicans’ irredeemably racist origins.  They don’t often cite the rampant turn of the century success of the Socialist Party and its incorporation into the modern Democratic Party (though as with all things liberal, it’s impossible to tell whether ignorance or malice is the better explanation for that).  In Europe, yes, these not-so-minor parties would send delegates to the national assembly.  Here they worm their way into major parties.  Read Eugene V. Debs’s 1912 campaign platform off a teleprompter and you’ve got your basic Barack Obama speech.

All it takes is a few electoral successes at the lower levels for a party to either get co-opted into a larger party, or to become the larger party.  That’s how we’ll get to American fascism.

The third assumption, again articulated best by Mr. Mitchell, is that the present prosperity will continue.  He writes

But, alas, even the most vile Dark Lord starts to feel a little kind when he’s had a good meal, a nice brandy, and some good music, and that’s death to the fever needed to bring about the Revolution.

I would agree with this if we weren’t a zillion bajillion dollars in the hole already, before the inevitable 404Care crash.  The ancien regime always feels this way, even while the torches and pitchforks are just over the hill.  All prosperity must be purchased.  What are we going to buy it with?  We’re broke.  Those things that can’t continue indefinitely, won’t.  The shock of the Depression enabled Hitler.  And Tojo.  And Mussolini.  And Mao.  And Chiang Kai-Shek.  Britain and France avoided it because of America.  America avoided it because of…..

…. think carefully before you answer, because here’s the followup:  Does it still exist, here in this year of our Lord 2013?

I say no.  But I sure hope I’m wrong.

More Dead Horse Beating

Nobody reads this thing anyway, so I’m going to go on with it.

beating_a_dead_horseSo far, so obvious — kids don’t know shit about the Holocaust.  But here’s the thing: The Holocaust was the culmination of a long series of events, and nobody knows anything about them, either.

If asked about how Hitler came to power, I suspect that most apolitical people would respond with some version of the Goldhagen Thesis.  Folks on the left would, of course, ascribe it to “right wing nationalism,” while folks on the right would probably, sadly, agree.

All of those are wrong.  And here’s why it matters:

Hitler’s main rhetorical enemy during his rise to power was democracy itself.  He could point at the Weimar Government and argue, quite correctly, that it was ineffective by design.  Its most capable figures were deeply uneasy with the idea of representative government; its least openly longed for the return of monarchy and considered Hitler a useful (though contemptible) counterweight against the communists.  With every electoral victory, moreover, Hitler strengthened his case.  The Reichstag contained representatives from two openly revolutionary parties, the Nazis and the Communists.  The system had elected people dedicated to bringing down the system.

Democracy doesn’t work, Hitler declared over and over.  It is incapable of solving the most pressing problems, which are the only ones that mattered.  He explicitly vowed to do away with representative government.  The people elected him anyway.

[Japan’s case is similar, in case it’s the whole Holocaust thing that’s keeping you from waking up and smelling the Weimar.  Taisho democracy didn’t work any better, and the Peace Protection Law confirmed it].

The more historically literate among our (maybe six total) readers will no doubt point out that Hitler never won a truly national election.  But that’s the point.  The Nazis positioned themselves as the fuck-you party, the only viable group outside Weimar cronyism.  A vote for them was a rebuke to both parties, and to the party system itself.

All it takes for a fascist party to flourish is a tipping point of dissatisfaction with the electoral process as a whole.  Once a critical mass of people realizes the whole shebang is just a crony protection racket, the game is just about up.

Two big indicators this tipping point is rapidly approaching:

1) The Democrats resolutely refused to agree to any plan that would make them go on Obamacare.  The Republicans let them off the hook, because they don’t want to go on Obamacare either.  Only a fool could believe that our “representatives” think the laws they make apply to themselves.  [And right on cue, here’s Republican golden boy Marco Rubio letting Obama off the hook yet again by pushing to delay the 404Care individual mandate.  Under what possible circumstances does this even benefit the Republican Party, let alone the people Rubio supposedly represents?  Here’s a quick test:  Think any so-called “conservative” would ever vote for this? QED].

2) The Republican Party — supposedly the opposition party — is far more interested in fighting the Tea Party than the Democrats.  You know, because alienating the most engaged segment of your base is the path to electoral success.

Don’t worry, though, the Dems will get theirs — credit limit hikes can only continue for so long, and eventually the permanent Democratic majority will have to choose winners and losers from among their client groups.  And liberal activists throw rocks and burn stuff.  Which is when you’ll start hearing the calls for a firm hand against social disorder…

Pre-Halloween Festival

Wisdom from my Hello Kitty of Blogging account:

I’d like to take this opportunity to propose a new holiday, a pre-Halloween holiday. I’m proposing a week-to-ten-day-long festival called “Get all the people who hate fun out of the way (they don’t want to be involved anyhow).” Or something.

Frumpy housewives who want to start tongue-clucking because the womens’ costumes are too slutty. Religious zealots fretting away because of the “occult” overtones. Liberals who want the kids collecting the most candy, to share it with the other kids who didn’t bother to go out. March them all into a great big, I dunno…big ol’ pumpkin or something. Seal it shut.

Let’s get something straight: Whatever else might have happened in its history, in modern times Halloween is the first big fun thing to happen after school opens up. It teaches — reminds — kids to enjoy the passage of time. This is important. It’s true they get plenty enough fun & relaxation during summer…maybe too much…if you want to start bitching about that, I’m in your corner. Halloween tells them, you get a good solid block of work done FIRST, then we start stretching into the holidays, and you start to think about blending the fun with the work. This is something you need to know how to do when you grow up. And let’s face it, the grown-ups need a chance to bust loose too.

Yes, of course you can disagree. Just get your ass in that pumpkin, and see you in ten.

I’m inspired by, among many other things, this

In the latest example of small-mindedness plaguing our educational system, schools around the country are attempting to ban costumes and candy on what is surely one of most kids’ favorite days of the year. The excuses range from vague concerns about “safety” to specific worries about food allergies to—get this—fears of breaching the wall of separation between church and state.

Fun HalloweenBut whatever the motivation, the end result is the same as what Charlie Brown used to get every time he went trick-or-treating: a big old rock in the candy bag. What sort of lesson are we teaching our kids when we ban even a tiny, sugar-coated break in their daily grind? Mostly that we are a society that is so scared of its own shadow that we can’t even enjoy ourselves anymore. We live in fear of what might be called the killjoy’s veto, where any complaint is enough to destroy even the least objectionable fun. [emphasis mine]

I think what bugs me more than anything else is that this is one of the last vestiges of the “neighborhood.” I don’t mean that in the physical sense. We have all sorts of neighborhoods. Trouble is, it’s becoming rare that anybody knows the first names or the last names of whoever’s living a hundred fifty feet away…or five hundred feet away…I’m concerned that they don’t have any reason to. I’m concerned that they have all sorts of reasons not to.

Everyone loves to brag about respecting “diversity.” Here’s the trick: Without intimacy, diversity’s easy. When it’s just that funny family down at the end of the block who moved in last year, of course you don’t care about their country of origin or whether they speak English. Heck, are they still there? Oh, so it might be credibly pondered that you’re all burning the same oxygen with your lungs. How courageous of you.

The more years I see come and go, the more amazed I am that the people who insist we “all come together to get things done” and that we give up our profits, liberties and personal ambitions “for the greater good,” are the ones plagued with the lion’s share of human-interaction handicaps. They say it is an impermissible manifestation of religiosity they can’t handle, but the truth is they can’t handle any dialogue or social configuration outside of their very narrow confine of the tolerable: “I tell people what to do and then they go do it.” That, or “I tell people to knock something off, and they must stop even if they’d rather not.” Besides those two things, anything else is out of their league.

Test it sometime. Do something truly sociable that puts everyone on equal footing. These people will be missing from it. The same people will always be missing, every time.

The truth of the matter is, that having real fun takes balls. No, I shouldn’t say that; a lot of women know how to have fun. Let’s say it takes a thick hide. One of the tragedies of our modern society is, the people with thin skins get to tell the people with thick skins how they’re supposed to live, work, learn and recreate. We’re not all getting an equal say here, and because of the dissipation of natural threats against our species, or society has turned into an Idiocracy. It’s the shrikes who are calling the shots now. The bossies. The knuckle-whackers. See, the eerie-prophecy movie didn’t quite call that one: We’ve started to crave taboos, invent new taboos, meaningless taboos that have no history and serve no purpose, just so we can shush each other. Like the article said: “Any complaint is enough to destroy even the least objectionable fun.”

In fact, I’ll bet a pillowcase of Milk Duds that if we could go back in time and review the true history of Halloween — not what’s been preserved for us, but the real thing, right down to the most arcane details — we’d find out it had something to do with fixing exactly that sort of problem: The thin-skinned people running everything. Perhaps not at the earliest origins, but somewhere along the way. Something to do with throwing off questionable taboos, celebrating the completion of a whole lot of work, or cutting loose with one last festivity before hunkering down for a suffocating and tough winter. Perhaps, making a point of knocking back a few with friends, relatives and neighbors, being unsure of whether they’d make it to the spring thaw? Kind of a “see you on the flip-side”? Makes sense to me…

So off with you, shrikes, strutting martinets, zealots, killjoys, seacows and scolds. Into the big pumpkin you go. I exorcise you like the evil spirits you are. See you on November 1.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing News.

The Fail

As I get older, I notice my observations about things — on some level — become, paradoxically, simpler. Perhaps this comes from OO design methodology. You remember the classic XYZ Corporation example: Salespeople have regions and make flat salaries, commissions and bonuses; but before they are instantiated as salespeople objects, they are employees, and as such have employee numbers and seniority dates. At the next level up, they are U.S. citizens and have Social Security numbers, then they are human beings with heights, weights, genders and dates-of-birth. The point is that one learns to look for the common attributes. It is a skill as well as a habit, and one is never finished fully developing it.

Now, how long have I been studying modern liberalism. It was impossible to ignore which side was right & which side was wrong during the Ford/Carter/Reagan years. My interest in the whole thing waned sharply during Reagan’s second term, along with everybody else’s I think, and I was entirely apolitical by the time Bush and Quayle were sworn in. Bill Clinton fixed that for good. First time I saw a photo-op of him in a school classroom babbling away about a whole lot of nothing, realizing this was our next President of the United States, I formed more-or-less the realizations I have right now: We are in the middle of a culture-clash about superficiality. The central issue involves what you might say is the proper response to snake-oil salesmen selling bad products, who sound good. And have already managed to convince “everybody” else. With scare-quotes around “everybody,” since what is meant by that is the illusion of everybody. That faction which has managed to erect a veneer of unanimity. Managed to dominate the conversation.

After that, the forces in my personal evolution have consisted of merely more nudging, mostly gentle but occasionally jarring, in the common direction. I found out the woman I divorced before Clinton came along, was a passionate democrat, and realized how much money I’d have saved if I simply took the time to figure this out sooner. Then came the shutdown and the Lewinsky scandal, both of which proved that there is an aristocracy of charisma in our superficial society, filled with lovable bumpkins who can get away with pretty much everything, things that would destroy you or me in an instant, and there are teeming throngs of adoring airhead fans who think that’s just wonderful. Then came the Florida election debacle, during which our liberals became much nastier, and the 9/11 attacks. Throughout all of this I have spent much more energy studying modern liberalism for one reason: It’s been proven to me that I have to.

Liberals are just like a roaring house fire. I have other things I have to get done that don’t have anything to do with studying liberals. But, at the same time, if I attend to those things and ignore the liberals, they’ll flare up and fucking consume whatever I manage to put together anyway. And, I’m picking up the vibe, generally, that I’m not alone in this. Those of us who build things, or want to build things, are conflicted. There is only so much time in the day, and we can spend a lot of it ignoring the liberals — but if we never pay attention to the damage they’re doing, they’ll destroy all our stuff and everything we manage to get done will be for nothing.

Which brings me to a realization already familiar to me. Futility. Perhaps it is not merely an effect of modern liberalism; perhaps it is the goal.

I am entertaining the notion, as I have before, that it is all about failure.

Modern liberals live on a wholly separate planet, strewn across its entire surface with opposite-thinking. They think they’ve managed to salvage our nation’s credit-worthiness, by selling the idea that debt doesn’t & shouldn’t matter. For those who have trouble buying into that, our Vice President once famously said we have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt. If our country has a problem with ignorance because it doesn’t do enough listening, the people to whom our friends the liberals think we should do more listening are the…children. There it is again, see: The inexperienced are to be seen as experienced, and vice-versa. The ranks of the leftists seem to be disproportionately swollen with the presence of asshole-makers, those who treat nice people as if they were mean people, and mean people as if they were nice. The climate-change scam has now managed to achieve ninety-five percent certainty even though the predictions are wrong. ObamaCare is evidently their idea of great legislation. Hillary Clinton is evidently their idea of a smart woman. They’re constantly braying that the Tea Party is by its very nature stupid, intransigent, unreasonable and kooky, although the core message of the TP is really nothing more than “maybe we should try not to rack up so much debt.” Sarah Palin still scares them and they still hate her, even though she resigned and went home just like they wanted her to do, and she isn’t forcing anyone to buy strange creepy new insurance policies from a crappy website that’s never up. They think the national parks should be locked down. They think our country’s borders should not be. When President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went on record to say they would refuse to negotiate during the shutdown, they strangely concluded that the Republicans in Congress must therefore be “holding the country hostage,” and should bear all the responsibility for the shutdown. They’re constantly in a state of fret that some sort of life-staple they demand from the government is going to be disrupted in its supply, and this apprehension of theirs seems genuine…their solution to this is always to have the government manage more things. They sanction discriminatory practices, in fact, insist on them at every turn, and they call this “equality.” Planet Liberal seems to be going through a “global warming” of its very own, of sorts, from which there is no terrestrial escape — of opposite-ness. Pole to pole, all around the equator, continent to continent and sea to sea. Everything is perceived by the vocal intelligentsia as the exact opposite of what it truly is.

To all of this we can add what may be the highest base abstract superclass: Victory is to be treated as failure, and failure is to be treated as victory. President Obama sucks, they admit, but they support Him anyway. If someone comes along to counsel or nudge toward success, they react with rage; the simpler the counseling, the hotter the rage. They seem to need, and want, and appreciate having, thin waists and fat wallets just like the rest of us. It is the dispensation of true wisdom that might lead to such desirable outcomes that really cheeses ’em off.

Think of: Two men come across undiscovered land, stake their claims, and get busy building their houses before the cold winter rolls in. One man succeeds at this and the other fails. Normal people like you and me might say, the man who succeeded at exactly the same problem in exactly the same conditions, using the same tools, with the same supplies at his disposal, might have some good information to share with the man who failed. Not so to our friends the liberals, from the opposite-ravaged planet. To them, “true” wisdom comes from the sad sack who had to move in to his friend’s abode for the winter. What really matters is “what it’s like” for him; there may be some information in the universe somewhere that’s still relevant, but this is the first-and-foremost, most important thing. And among those who need to pull up a chair and listen endlessly, the one guy who most urgently needs to receive the information about how it feels to be a loser, is the guy who managed to get it done. He has the most to learn. He should listen, listen and listen some more to the endless caterwauling about the despair, the cold, the rain, the embarrassment, the dependency, how awful it all is…and then he should pay higher taxes for his friend who has to be on the dole now. Maybe they can dismantle that fancy house, then one guy can live under the roof and the other one can have the walls.

And this is true with every domestic policy they have to offer. Haven’t you noticed? Those who have managed to produce the things we all want, need to shut up, pay their taxes, and stand by waiting to be told what to do…by some “regulators” who are thought to be supremely wise in some way. Although, common sense says that if the regulators knew anything about producing, they wouldn’t be regulating, they’d be producing.

The point is: In their world, losers always have something to teach the winners. Winners have nothing to offer by way of useful knowledge, to the losers. No non-achievers can ever be told anything they might need to learn, to become achievers. That, to them, is hateful. It’s disrespectful. It makes the losers feel like losers.

It never seems to fall within their tight perimeter of thinking, that if anyone really thought of the losers as cradle-to-grave losers, the last thing that person would do would be disrupting his business — which obviously works — to stop and offer the losers some guidance. That would only make sense if the successful person saw some potential there. So by seeing the losers as losers-today-winners-tomorrow-maybe, those who give advice to the losers show the losers vastly more respect than our friends the liberals, who seem to be oblivious to the very concept of improved results by way of expansion of knowledge, as well as to the concept of time.

The disagreement here is about whether losers have anything to learn. From that, spring all the other disagreements, it seems. Which are much more contentious than they need to be, since the modern liberals are so far off-base that they insist it is the losers who should be doing all the teaching, and the winners should be doing the learning. From the losers.

It’s odd that when it comes to partisan wrangling in Washington, they don’t follow through. When democrats negotiate with Republicans, suddenly the modern left understands victory just fine. The same goes for elections. As incumbents and as challengers, liberals act during elections exactly the way conservatives act with things that are outside politics. They play to win. It’s only in the policies to which they want to commit the rest of us, that they treat defeat like victory and victory like defeat.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing News.

Maria Kang

Got a big controversy over the above photograph. She’s a local lady here, who’s created a national uproar. I guess it’s the “What’s Your Excuse?” line rubbing some people the wrong way.

Jack Armstrong of Armstrong & Getty was complaining that her occupation has been toned down, failing to find mention in articles like this one. She’s some kind of fitness trainer or something. So I guess the rebuttal would be…”my excuse is that I’m not a fitness trainer”? And it would seem I can throw stones like everyone else at hapless Maria, since I’m not a fitness trainer either and I seem to have packed on thirty pounds plus over the last couple years. So pass the rock and let’s get in line, right?

Sorry, no dice. This is not about fat.

There are two kinds of people in the world. Some say, “if one guy did it anywhere, that means anybody else who wants to, can do it everywhere.” The other kind say, “if one guy somewhere can’t do it, then nobody else should be able to do it either.” Perhaps the Facebook ladies getting all pissed off at Ms. Kang have hit a compromise: “I’m willing to do what it takes to get the weight off, so long as nobody, anywhere, does or says anything to make me feel bad.” It’s that last set that is the problem here, not Maria Kang. You have to choose your battles. The fact is, a lot of people who have weight problems simply want to have everything as good as they can possibly have it, every waking minute of every day. Why get a Quarter Pounder, when there’s a Double Quarter Pounder right next to it for only another dollar? “She said something that rubbed me the wrong way, now I must start a revolution” — that’s just an extension of that. Feel feel feel, every situation that comes along, it’s all about how it makes you feel. That’s how people put on weight.

You know, there are certain truisms about criticism, whether the criticism is personalized or not: Criticism is almost never one hundred percent on-the-money. It’s always wrong somewhere. But it very seldom entirely misses the mark, either. You have to, as the adage goes, “take what you like and leave the rest.” In the case of criticism, nobody likes any of it, so what you need to do is take what will help you and improve your situation…and leave the rest. Did Maria Kang’s flippant comment entirely miss the mark? With everyone?

Let’s answer that question with another question: Are the complaining-people not answering her question rather directly? “My excuse is that you’re making me feel bad about myself.” And in so doing, are they not proving the question has more than a little merit? “What’s your excuse” means, boiled down to its essentials, “how little does it take to make you abandon your goal of a better body?” And the answer is “some stranger on Facebook posting pictures I don’t like.” Pretty low bar. So there’s opportunity for improvement there.

The real tragedy is this: That is precisely the problem Ms. Kang was trying to solve, if I’m reading her message right. And I think I am. She took the time and trouble to reach the emotionally sensitive types, the kind of people who aren’t inclined to say “no pain no gain,” just-do-it, the kind who have not yet pushed past that first milestone. The must-feel-good-all-the-time types. And, those are exactly the ones who are biting her head off over it.

We can have a legitimate argument over whether or not she deployed sufficient tact. But she was trying to help. And the fact is, these people can’t admit that they’re the ones who have the problem. They’re showing the real reason why they don’t look as good as Maria Kang, from the neck down, and nothing is going to change there until something changes between the ears. That makes the whole thing personal, and a bit nasty. Maria Kang didn’t make it that way and neither did I.

“A New Variety of Privilege”

They know, Mr. Taranto, they know.

[Shanta] Driver’s position seems instead to be based on the contemporary leftist theory that groups certified as “oppressed” deserve special treatment at the expense of the “privileged.” Such a view, however, collapses in its own illogic. A system that gives special treatment to members of an “oppressed” group is simply a new variety of privilege.

Yes, The Left is supposed to be about “equality.” Yet, with every single issue that comes along, there is always one class of people The Left wants to win all the time, and another class of people they want to be beaten all of the time. And, of course, they’re full of complaints whenever they don’t win. All of the time.

They’re not about equality and they never have been. Where did we ever get such an idea? They said so?

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing News.