But SPILLZZZZ!!!!

I have a very dear friend who has some native ancestry and Indian Nation issues are very important to her.

Thus I’m in an awkward, bad position between her friendship and the DAPL hysteria.

I’m not upset with her.  I’m upset with the people who have fed the hysteria for their own political and economic purposes.  There are those who don’t want us to use oil, period, because Man Bear Pig (who ironically are now posting about how low gas prices are because Obama … who wanted them to go up… I’m so confused)  — and those with economic interests in the status quo … transporting more oil over their railways or in trucks over our highways (burning fossil fuels whose exhaust feeds Man Bear Pig — again, these people don’t appear to have a need to be consistent.)

I ran across a post this morning where she asked

“So where were your safety measures for THIS pipeline spill?” linking an article about a spill in Montana in the Yellowstone River a few years ago by an Exxon pipeline.

Naturally curious me, I go read about it.  And this is what I found.

That pipeline (Silvertip) was placed 70 years ago and runs 5-12 feet deep under the river (incidentally, *now* it runs 40 feet beneath the river). 5-12 feet of sediment can easily be scoured out by erosion especially during floods. What they think happened in Montana was boulders moving along the bottom during recent flooding ripped an exposed section of the pipeline open, right there at the river bottom during flooding. No pipeline should be that close to the surface under a waterway — especially a river.

Pipelines in the past have been  cavalierly placed much too close to the surface. The proposed DAPL pipeline run would pass 95 to 115 feet deep under the lake.  So the answer is, safety measures weren’t in place for that pipeline. They didn’t exist when the pipeline was built. In the case of the one that recently ruptured, “under” was closer to “running right along the bottom of”. This was bad, and there are probably a lot more of these that need to be addressed with modern equipment and higher standards for how deep they go when they pass underneath waterways. Along with thicker metal and perhaps double-walls.

I would be more concerned with having companies like Exxon replace old sections of the hundreds of pipelines that currently run under bodies of water all over the country with the same kind of design developed for DAPL. I’m far more worried about contamination from those than I am about this DAPL run.

I do consider myself an environmentalist.  Not one of these hyper, every bug must be protected at all costs environmentalists.  But I, like most people, want clean air and water and unspoiled places to go to get away from life in the city and experience the wild country.  I’m kind of big on that, really.

So I’m serious about that addressing old pipelines bit.  Not only do we not want to waste crude oil, but no, I really don’t want it in the water and contaminating the rivers’ edges.

I Made Jim Give at the Office

So this meme post comes across my timeline when a friend commented on it.

I’ve seen it before.  But man.  It is so demonstrably untrue, this time I had to say something.

As with a lot of these things, there’s a lot missing. Of course conservatives care. They just don’t think they should be able to use the force of government to force anyone else to act like they care, and in what ways they must act like they care. Conservatives don’t typically have a need to be seen caring. They just do it.

To which one woman replied:

“Sorry. Cutting aid to starving children doesn’t seem like caring about anything but your own pocketbook.”

So I went on:

You talk as if aid is this thing that is just there in nature – like air, that everyone has a right to, and someone is taking it away.

It’s a matter of perspective. Aid should be given freely, not taken. When government is in charge of it, the only “taking” is done from the people who had it to begin with.

As if it is only aid if it came from the government. Well nothing comes from the government. Everything it has came from someone else (or will come from someone else, since it borrows heavily from our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ futures to pay for this aid in this generation).

And it is demonstrably untrue that conservatives don’t care and don’t give to charity. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals … here, a link from the definitively NOT conservative NYT on a study that surprised even the researcher. (note this is on TOP of what they are required to “give” through the government).

Political liberals are all about telling people how much of other people’s money people should get, but it apparently stops with supporting the mandates, not giving freely themselves.

“I’ll pass, I made Jim give at the office.”

Get this … here’s a real response I got.

Why are all of these trolls suddenly showing up on a Liberal FB page?? All of you need to leave us alone.

So you can be free to echo the hate you have based on demonstrably false premises without being challenged?  And we’re responsible for the divisiveness?

If You Were Serious….

Co-Blogger Philmon has a category called Stop an Echo — challenging those moldy, rotten chestnuts that everyone “knows” but that ain’t so.  One of my favorite techniques for doing this is to take liberal claims seriously, and extrapolate the implications.  If they don’t have an answer to even the most incandescently obvious consequences of their statements, they’re just parroting talking points.  Like so:

imagesIf you really believe in Global Warming, why are you still driving a car?  Heck, why haven’t you shorted oil company stocks, and gone long in green tech?  You’ll make zillions!  Even if you don’t want to grubby up your hands with capitalism, have you done anything — anything at all — to modify your own personal lifestyle?  Or are you just getting off on telling other people what to do?

If you’re convinced there is no God, why do you keep picking fights with believers?  I don’t go out picking fights with liberals, because Reality’s gonna do that for me.  More to the point, has that ever worked?  Has the ol’ smirk-n-snark ever changed one single mind?  Doesn’t it bother you that, argument-wise, you’re the Washington Generals?  If you’re so wedded to facts and reason, shouldn’t your 0-and-whatever lifetime record be the slightest cause for concern?

If “reason” is so “heavily masculine-coded” that it’s just a buzzword, how do you expect to change any male minds?  We’re reasoners, after all — heck, according to you, that’s our main problem!  And if you don’t expect to change any male minds, how do you expect to break free of the shackles of Patriarchy that, according to you, is “the system which operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women‘s subordination, and to uphold male dominance”?  Poor benighted male that I am, you’re going to have to give me some step-by-step instructions on how to “smash patriarchy.”  Do you have a manual I can read?

I’d love to learn some “Game.”  Problem is, I don’t have the time or the money to hit the clubs every night.  And I can’t really do “Day Game,” because I have a “day job.”  And I don’t live in a ginormous city, so there are a limited number of clubs to hit… and since I’m not already an expert, and since those clubs have regulars, I’m now well known as that creepy guy who keeps “stacking routines” to “initiate kino.”  I’ll keep plugging away — practice makes perfect! — but I have to assume I’m not the only guy with these problems.  If y’all are really out there “sarging” every night — and I totes believe you — there should be lots of resources on “how to get laid on $15 a night,” “how to keep bouncers from throwing you out because you keep bugging all their regular customers,” “how to look good in work clothes after hitting the clubs until 3am and waking up in a stranger’s bed on the other side of town,” and so forth.  Can y’all point me to some of those sites?

How do laws against murder fail to prevent murder?  Y’all keep telling me that mass shootings are the result of our pathetically inadequate gun control laws.  I’m all for passing the most draconian gun laws… as soon as you explain to me how those laws will work when the laws against murder don’t.  Jihad Johnny is heading out to shoot up a nightclub.  He’s got murder in his heart.  He knows it’s illegal — in fact, is a death penalty offense in a lot of jurisdictions– but he’s willing to sacrifice it all for Allah.  But then he sees a sign that says “no firearms permitted on premises” and calls it off…. right?  That’s really how it’s supposed to work, right?

Come to think of it, I have a similar question about drugs.  Y’all are all about pot legalization, because cannabis has all those medical benefits.  But… how do you know?  Pot possession has been illegal in every jurisdiction in the land for almost your entire lives.  Since passing gun control laws will — according to y’all — make sure nobody has access to guns, I have to assume that “pot control” laws have completely eliminated access to pot.  So how do you know how great getting high is?  Or is this all theoretical?

How much money is “enough?”  I really thought we’d get the answer to that one when Obama said “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”  As the press loves to hold Obama’s feet to the fire — according to y’all, the media has a conservative bias — I was certain they’d get Him to put a precise dollar figure on that… but no.  So it’s up to y’all.  Heck, round it off to the nearest thousand dollars; just give me a ballpark figure.

Speaking of, can you give me a similar figure for “fair share”?  Y’all keep insisting that all our financial woes would be solved if only “the rich” would pay their “fair share.”  What amount is that, to the nearest thousand?  How about the nearest percentage point?  And while you’re at it, could you give me a quick definition of “the rich”?  I’ll need to see the criteria on this one, not just the dollar figure, since there are so many ways to define “rich.”  Are we talking AGI, net worth, investable assets, what?  (Since you’re so deeply informed on financial matters, I assume you know what those are and how to calculate them).

And while we’re talking money, y’all assure me that so much of our current predicament stems from “deregulation.”  Well, there’s an easy fix for that!  Let’s re-pass all those old regulations.  But I’ll need you to remind me: which specific regulations were they?

Last money question, I promise:  How much should “health care” cost?  I know, I know, it’s waaaay too high now, and single payer will fix it.  I totes believe you about that, too.  But since some of my nearest and dearest work in the field, getting those health care costs where they should be is going to cause some big changes in their standard of living.  Doctors have student loans too, you know.  Am I going to have to put my heart surgeon nephew up on my couch for a few weeks while he finds a second job at the local Walmart?  How do they manage it up in Canada?

I’ve got lots more, but that’ll do for now.  Please leave your answers in the comments.  Thanks!

Oh No!!! PURGES!!!!!

Herr Trumpf is purging “principled conservatives.”  Also known as…wait for it…. dissidents!  (Remind me: Is dissent the highest form of patriotism again?  Or are we all supposed to get in line behind the John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world, because that’s what “principled conservatives” do?)  Anyway….

Whether the establishment political class was on board with Trump from the beginning (and most were not), they are going to use loyalty to Trump as an excuse to purge conservatives of conscience from having any political work at all. And the people who still remain opposed to Trump are the same people who are likely to align with the conservative troublemakers in both the House and the Senate. With the willing aid of the Trumpkins, the goal is to crush Cruz’s actual and ideological allies and drive them from the party.

The only named “actual and ideological ally” of Ted Cruz?  Ben freakin’ Sasse.

As the Z Man quips, Ben Sasse is the epitome of the Trotsky Wing of the Republican Party.  His resume reads like something I’d make up to lampoon guys like Ben Sasse:

He spent a year in the dreaded private sector after college and then got on the gravy train of government work. A dozen years on the dole and runs for Senate and is now the shiny new penny “representing” Nebraska, a place he rarely visited for twenty years prior to his election. Instead of working his way up from dog catcher or state rep, he just parachuted into the Senate without much vetting.

Let’s see…yep: “consultant” (=lobbyist) for a year, then a year as “consultant/executive director” at some evangelical (=lobbying) group, then Homeland Security, HHS, and the Senate, with some Obama-style “professor” gigs thrown in.  Government or academia — when he’s not in government, or lobbying the government, he’s “teaching” government.  Dude is 44 years old and has never, ever held a job that didn’t involve kneepad service to the leviathan state.

What principle could he possibly have acquired, in all those years working his fingers to the bone shuffling regulations in the belly of the beast?  He’s a full time tax code comma-juggler…. but he gives the occasional shout-out to Jesus, so he’s a “conservative.”

Just for giggles, I googled Redstate’s last two endorsements for president: Bible-thumping no-hoper Rick Santorum (because he’s against abortion and global weathering) and that truest of true conservatives, the lisping Cuban Cabana Boy himself, Marco “Bootsie” Rubio, because “electability.”   I’m trying to figure out what “principle” this track record hews to… nope, coming up empty.  Unless, of course, it’s the principle of “throw the election to the Democrats, then climb up on our cross and scream ‘forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do’ at every possible opportunity for the next four to eight years.  Oh, and please donate!  Paypal, Patreon… it’s all good.”

The old 90s-style culture wars are dead, y’all.  You want to know why Republican voters don’t care about abortion anymore?  I’ll spell it out for you in little bitty words: IT’S THE FUCKING IMMIGRANTS.  The very same self-righteous Churchians who are out there marching for life are helping Obama import Aztecs and Muzzies as fast as they can fill the cargo holds.  The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and neither is the Gospel. The rest of us can see that for every baby you save from the butcher’s knife — and it’s a laudable goal, God bless you — you’re disemploying five American citizens, three of whom will be wounded in next week’s outbreak of Sudden Onset Jihad Syndrome.

While all that’s going on, the wonkblogs are yelling about “purges,” as if stone-faced men in jackboots have hauled poor Ben Sasse off to a meeting with a rubber hose and some thumbscrews.  In reality, of course, he’ll be back in the Senate sponsoring vital true conservative legislation in no time.  And should he be ousted in his next reelection bid — perhaps because the voters of the great state of Nebraska couldn’t pick him out of a police lineup — he’ll be right back on K Street the next day, true conservatively lobbying Congress for more true conservative pork.

But don’t forget: it’s e before i in “gleichschaltung.”  PURGES!!!!

The Confederate Flag, Slavery’s Role in the Civil War, and Why Historical Literacy Doesn’t Mean a Thing

An interesting discussion going on over at Morgan’s.  I want to expand a bit on a point I made there.  I’m sure Umberto Eco and Dan Brown have put this more eloquently than I can, but symbols quickly take on a life of their own, outside — or even opposite — their historical context.  Here’s a familiar example:

untitledAsk any bong warrior on any campus in America what this means, and you’ll get some gassy bullshit about sticking it to The Man, man.  Crucially: you’ll get the same answer from people who know better.  Guevara’s real life and opinions are meaningless; his face on a t-shirt = rebellion.

The Confederate Battle Flag is going down a similar road.

just to make sure **everyone** is offended

just to make sure **everyone** is offended

As the battle lines stand now, one side says the Battle Flag stands for racism; the other says it stands for heritage.  That’s about to change.

Now, I could point out that slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War, not the root cause, in the same way taxation was the proximate cause of the Revolutionary War (ever tried explaining the Revolution to a bright fifth grader?  It’s dollars to donuts they’ll say something like “wow, all those people got killed because Sam Adams didn’t want to pay his taxes?”).  I could say that the root causes were two fundamentally different notions of government, and the citizen’s relationship to the state.  We could have a long, interesting, and fruitful discussion about that (which seems to be where it’s heading over at Morgan’s, provided nobody checks the authenticity of my George Washington quote).

But none of it matters, because nobody who’s actually going to be wearing the Confederate flag on his clothing, or screaming for the flag-wearers to be jailed, knows a single fucking thing about the Civil War.  I have fairly extensive experience with the American educational system, and I promise you, most folks can’t get the date of the battle of Gettysburg right within 50 years.  Few if any have even heard of John C. Calhoun, much less know anything about his ideas.  And — see above — it wouldn’t matter if they did.  Keep gazing into Che’s eyes until you get it.

That being the case, the Confederate Battle Flag will soon come to mean nothing more than “rebellion” to people who are sick to death of being PC-whipped by a remote, clueless minority and their government lapdogs (as, I’m told, it already does in many parts of Eastern Europe).  And because this is Weimar America, the issue will never, ever die, until the “republic” does — I promise you, my friends, every single Republican candidate will be invited to disavow the CBF by the media at every single event from now until doomsday.

Pretty soon — if it hasn’t already happened — there will be exactly two possible opinions on the CBF: the SJW version, or the anti-SJW version.  You can either swallow the some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others Stalinist SJW bullshit, or you can side with General Lee.

History ain’t got nothing to do with it.

Nail. Head. BAM! Flush to the board

Just thought this needed bookmarking (via Chicks on the Right)….

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas (who is an Iraq War veteran) had this to say in response to those questions and it is the best response I’ve heard from anyone about this –

“Knowing what we know now, I absolutely would have sent the Pacific Fleet out of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 4 to intercept the Japanese Fleet,” Cotton told the Washington Examiner during an interview in his Capitol Hill office. “I say that to highlight how foolish the question is. You don’t get to live life in reverse. What a leader has to do is make a decision, at the moment of decision, based on the best information he has. George Bush did that in 2002 and 2003 and he was supported by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry and every western country’s intelligence agency.”
“There are lessons we can learn from the early days of the Iraq war. One is that we clearly should be more critically analytical about our approach to intelligence assessments,” Cotton added.

 

“Exploiting” the Third World

This is actually very close to a conversation that flipped a friend of mine.

Saw this posted on the innerwebs:

skilled workersNo.  Jobs are being sent overseas because skilled workers in other countries demand less for their labor, and they can because WE subsidize American unemployment too generously.

Let’s follow the “logic” of the poster.  It would, apparently, be better for the poor “exploited” non-unionized, third-world worker who now has an income he can feed his family on and maybe fix his roof … if we didn’t export that job and instead paid the flat panel TV, iPhone totin’, lavish retirement plan givin’, unemployment guaranteein’  wage to the guy here in America instead. It would also make his iPhone more expensive.

No, that third world guy would be MUCH better off doing seasonal work in a rice paddy somewhere exposed to malaria-ridden mosquitoes and foot fungus trying to scratch out a basic living for his family and maybe afford a used 1970’s transistor radio.  Because YOU deserve a higher wage.

Provide more value to the world than you are paid, and the work will come to you.  That is how wealth is generated, making the pie bigger for everyone.

Thatisall.

A Very Moldy Chestnut Troll

I saw a “questionnaire” posted to Chicks on the Right‘s wall … very likely by a troll who was doing the whistling “but I’m a moderate” schtick.  By the time I finished my reply to the comment, the post had been deleted.

Still, I thought … idiotic as these questions seem if you know your stuff… they still need to be answered.  They are echoes that need to be stopped.  And we all need to be very comfortable answering them with rational answers.

  1. Why shouldn’t education and health care be free? when the US spends an abhorrent amount of money on the military and defence, & isn’t making a world a better place, and would appear to be on the brink of imperialism with its foreign policy.

Because nothing’s free.  Somebody pays for everything, or somebody is forced to do it without due compensation.  One is robbery, the other is slavery. There are lots more good reasons, but that’s the bottom line.  There’s also the problem of market distortions.  Artificially low price drives up demand, which drives up real price.  Which, again, somebody has to pay.

National Defense is in the enumerated powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution.  “Free” Health Care is not.  We can argue the finer points of how our defenses are deployed and projected, but at least does fall under the official list of things the Federal Government is tasked with.  And it’s a mighty odd imperialist that hands countries it has “conquered” back to its people and helps reconstruct them.

“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  1. I am a keen target shooter, I don’t push for bans on rifles like the AR-15 etc but I can’t help but notice that 10’000 + homicides are committed with firearms and the current system doesn’t work, why is a mild form of gun control off the cards?

And before firearms they were committed with knives and poison and bare hands.  People murder.  Always have.  They use what’s available to them.   There is something to the saying “God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.”  A revolver removes the difference between a 260 lb man and a 130 lb woman.  We have a right to protect ourselves, whether the criminals are in an alley or oppressing us within the government.  And the gun isn’t going to get un-invented.

There are lots of forms of gun control right now, mild and otherwise.  Thousands of gun control laws.  What we don’t want is de-facto removal of our right to keep and bear them, or de-facto gun registration so that when the statists finally get their way (call it “the stupidity of the American voter”), government officials know exactly whose houses to go to and what they need to confiscate.  Except the only people who will register are those with a strong aversion toward breaking the law.  Which will leave all of the remaining firearms in the hands of those who do NOT have an aversion toward breaking the law.

60% of those “homicides” are suicides, and again, a gun is a very effective and quick tool for the job.  If it weren’t there, they’d kill themselves with something else.  And a huge chunk of the rest of them is gang violence.  How about we address the problems and not the symptoms?

The second amendment isn’t about target shooting, or even hunting — though it does cover both.

Don’t just read the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers and the discussions that went into the Constitution.  It’s all documented.

  1. Why should the right put people like Ted Cruz in a position to be overseeing NASA and Science in the US when he is anti science? Doesn’t that seem counter intuitive for a nation that hopes to lead the world in innovation and research, all held back by a man who believes genesis?

What makes you think Ted Cruz is “anti-science” outside of left-wing talking points?  Because he’s Christian?  Do you realize how many great scientists were and are Christian?  Somehow we managed to get to the moon before we made being Christian suspect.  Lots of Christians in that program, and others.

Why does the right support creationism ? The overwhelming number of scientists (the people who’s job it is to find fact rather that just take an old books word for it) have a perfectly sound scientific theory which contradicts the unsound view of creationism.

Creationists are generally on the right, but being on the right does not necessarily mean you are a creationist … it doesn’t even mean you are a Christian.  We have Atheists on the right.  We have agnostics, Jews …. even some Muslims.

Why does the right push a Christian agenda (claiming america is founded on Christian values) yet the the only time religion is mentioned in the constitution is for separation of church and state? (not to mention the beliefs of atheism, deism, agnosticism amongst the founders)

Because America was founded on Christian values.  Western Culture is deeply rooted in Christianity.  Oh, there’s been a rebellion against it, but the values are still there.

“Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

Have you read the Preamble to the Constitution?  “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights” … Again, read the documents surrounding the creation of the Constitution.  There is lots of talk about God.  They put a chapel in the freakin’ Capitol, fer Chrissakes.  Pretty much the rest of the Constitution deals with what the structure of the Federal government, how it is to do things, and what it is NOT allowed to do.

There is no mention of “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution.  In the first amendment to the Constitution (which is part of the Constitution, as all amendments are) the part that mentions religion says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  That’s it.

An “establishment of religion” isn’t the same thing as religion in general. It basically means establishments like “The Methodist Church” or “The Catholic Church” or “The Lutheran Church”.  Not generic Christianity or generic “religion”, where there are no church officials to dictate things.  The purpose of this language was to avoid a Church of England type situation where unelected Church officials had official government positions of authority, so that the government would not be allowed to suppress other Churches.  This has been misinterpreted and bastardized to the point where it is used to do exactly that, the opposite of its intent.  In any culture of free people, laws will necessarily reflect the values of the people. It was most certainly not to keep the values of We the People from being reflected in law. If the peoples’ values are generally Christian, those are the values they’re going to reflect.  This is not the same as having some Bishop make law by fiat.

There were deists among the founders, and the Christians of the time were very tolerant of that, as were the deists of Christianity – even deferential to it.  Deism was informed by a Christian culture and carries forward, albeit in a very generic form, those values.

A rose, cut from the vine, still has the qualities of a rose though it is put in a jar.  The longer it remains cut and separate from the vine, though … it withers and dies and produces no fruit.

Surely is would be absurd to say every political decision ever made by Obama (and I am not a fan of him) is wrong ?

It wouldn’t be absurd to say, if it were true.  Still, it’s not quite true.  A stopped clock is right twice a day.   But as a rule of thumb the values that guide him tend to guide him to make decisions contrary to our founding principles.  And I don’t think it’s an accident.

Why push Faith as being a central part of the political right ? (Faith is an insertion of absolute conviction that is assumed without reason and defended against all reason)

Again, people of faith are a part of the political right, they do not define the political right.  You are going to find a lot of people of faith on the political right, certainly — as their values lead to our founding values — that is where they are going to be most at home.  And on top of that, every belief system is based, ultimately, on faith in something.  Even yours.

Here is a big difference.  The political right can hold the two opposing concepts in its head … that something can be wrong but not against the law, and that something can be right but the law should not compel it.  This allows some latitudinal variations in the details of disparate peoples’ beliefs.  But there must be some homogeneity in a culture for it to be cohesive and have meaningful law.  If any belief is admissible, the logical end is that any behavior is justifiable, and every behavior is also unjust.  Sounds great in Philosophy class, but it’s no way to run a nation.

Stolen Land

I find this interesting too….

Went to St. Charles for their Christmas Traditions Festival over the weekend.  Found a book, “Indian Story and Song from North America” by Alice C. Fletcher … a Victorian woman who did a lot of research on American Indian music around the 1890’s — by hanging out with them, listening to their stories.  I’ve always been interested in a lot of the cultural aspects of the American Indians.

So I bought the book.  And I’m reading along in it – she tells the stories behind the songs as told to her by tribe members.

“The He-du’-shka Society is very old.  It is said to have been in existence at the time when the Omahas and the Ponkas were together as one tribe.  There is a song with a dance which must be given at every meeting.  It is to keep alive the memory of a battle that took place while we were migrating westward, and where defeat would have meant our extermination as a tribe.  I will tell you the story.

One morning, the tribe, whose country had been invaded by the Ponkas, made an unexpected assault upon the camp of the invaders.  For a time, it seemed as though the Ponkas would fare badly at the hands of their assailants, who were determined to drive out or destroy the intruders;  but after a desperate struggle the Ponkas pushed their enemies back from the outskirts of the village, until finally their retreat became a rout.  Both sides suffered great loss.  The ground was strewn with the dead, and the grass stained with the blood of the warriors who fell in the battle;  but the victory was with us, and we had conquered the right to dwell in that country.”

There are those who insist on advancing the view that Europeans came across the ocean with some sort of unique “western” attitude that migration and acquisition of property by force to facilitate it means that the “white man” has no right to the land that he lives on today, many generations later.  This attitude is based on standards since set by those very “white men”.  We are judging the past through the lens of today’s standards, and we are leaving out important details to do that.

If we, the descendants of those who conquered this land have no right to it as it was obtained by conquest – and we obtained it from people who obtained it by conquest … where, exactly, does that chain of logic end?

D’Souza’s “America – Imagine A World Without Her” addresses this and many other memes.  It’s worth watching.

Moral Equivalence Fail

explode

I’m not the first to address this meme … but I wanna do it my way.  And pile on, while I’m at it.

Holly Fisher, who posted this photo of herself after the Hobby Lobby decision, was … advised by her, ahem, “intellectual betters”, that all it was missing was a flag, a gun, and a Bible.

 

 

So Holly posted this.

fisherflag

 

To which her, ahem, “intellectual betters” responded:

explainthediff

 

So … sure.  For those who have been intellectually impaired by moral equivalence …

fisherexplain