Minds Tightly Shut — Patrick Richardson

Minds Tightly Shut — Patrick Richardson

Our friend Darkside Dave has branched out from peeing matches with his family and started one with some of his liberal friends.

See he dared to question liberal orthodoxy, namely he mentioned to them that perhaps the way out of this economic mess we’re in is to *gasp* cut spending.

Well you would have thought the world had come to an end. He was accused of everything from homophobia to wanting children and old people to die in the cold while eating cat food to miscegenation with rabid hamsters.

Dave was a bit shocked by this because he’d always believed to be liberal was to be open minded.

Well, that’s actually sorta true — provided you’re talking about classic liberalism like that of our Founders.

See the Founders were true radicals of their day. Children of the enlightenment, influenced by the likes of John Locke, they had come to believe that out-sized government power was the biggest threat to liberty and prosperity humans could face.

Mostly Christian men, they were also mostly descendants of people who’d come to these shores to escape religious persecution, so they set about to create a state in which people could worship, or not, however they pleased. Growing up as British Subjects, these men knew full well the dangers of censorship and of summary arrest, so they created a nation in which the press and the people were free to speak their minds, and where the government had to show cause why they should be allowed to arrest or search anyone. (Parenthetically, the idea of an unbiased press hadn’t even occurred to anybody at this point, every newspaper had its voice, and pursued its own political ends, a situation to which, for better or worse, we seem to be returning.)

They believed everyone should have a right to live however they want and believe whatever they want, so long as it harmed no one else — and regardless of whether they or anyone else agreed with that life style or belief.

Now, liberals and conservatives both have a little trouble with that last one, but in the end the most egregious violators of that principle are on the left. There are exceptions, but for the most part conservatives could really care less who you sleep with as long as you keep it in the bedroom where it belongs.

Contrast those classic liberals with the modern version. If you suggest that perhaps homosexual marriage is not such a hot idea and that it tends to carry with it some rather thorny problems when it’s imposed on religious institutions over their objections you’re called a homophobe.

If you have the temerity to try to have an open an honest discourse on race, you’re called a racist, even if you’re black and discussing African-Americans (I really hate that term, but that’s for another time), just ask Juan Williams.

If you’re crazy enough to suggest maybe taxing rich people who create jobs in order to give their money to poor people who don’t create anything, you’re called heartless and told you want the children to die.

If you’re like me, and your alter-ego is a member of the MSM during the day, (I’m just a caped conservative crusader in the evenings,) you can lose your job or find it impossible to get one if your political beliefs become known.

Conservatives get called every name in the book, racists, homophobes, pedophiles — you name it. We have our lives, our livelihoods and our families denigrated, threatened and destroyed — just ask Sarah Palin. We’re told we’re not only stupid, but evil. We are accused of being parochial, hypocritical, narrow-minded rednecks for the sin of — believing something different than what we’re told to think.

Withal, we mostly shrug, tell liberals “Well you’re entitled to what you believe, I think you’re wrong, in fact I think you’re stupid, but you’re entitled to what you believe.”

Often enough we then ask our liberal friend if he wants to go have a beer after work. Now tell me, which one of us is narrow minded?

140 thoughts on “Minds Tightly Shut — Patrick Richardson

  1. Minds tightly shut or so open minded their brains fell out? Hard to tell the difference sometimes. I tend to think the latter came first followed by the former.

      1. I expect we agree on their stunted development, with no need to obsess over just where they’re stuck.

  2. Pretty much impossible to have a rational discussion with any of them these days. Doesn’t bode well.

    Nice post. You should do more.

  3. Leftists preach “open-mindedness” only when they seek to boost their notions about how others should live. Once their agenda is in place, they want to close debate.

              1. That neuroscience student needs to be kicked out of her course, stat. Scientific objectivity is not going to happen with that considerable lack of brain.

                This kind of stupid cannot be argued with, and should be mocked as harshly as it deserves to be.

              2. A further example of epic fail when it comes to biology.


                And these are the same people who bleat about specialness and individuality, and being unique and all that stuff.

                Let’s not even go into the biological uniqueness of a person, (bar identical twins) but hey, ‘it’s just a bunch of cells’ and at the same time ‘I’ll see you again someday!”

                The illogic hurts my brain.

      1. “It does not, in the conventional phrase, accept the conclusions of science, for the simple reason that science has not concluded. To conclude is to shut up; and the man of science is not at all likely to shut up.”

        ― G.K. Chesterton

  4. Both “liberals” and “conservatives” are accused of being inflexible but my experience tells a different tale.

    When you press most conservatives as to why they are inflexible on a topic you come down to a couple of reasons:

    1) The historic data has shown this is a bad idea. The national government running a business is an example of this situation. In some highly specialized cases, it may be necessary to endure the associated problems but in general the national government cannot run anything like a business.

    2) It conflicts with the tenants of their religion. Most Christians cannot endorse homosexual marriage. They may recognize its existence but they cannot endorse it. To do so is a denial of their religions beliefs and the associated divine mandates that govern the practice of that religion.

    3) The proposed action presents an imminent threat to a critical aspect of the culture. Implementation of Sharia law in some areas of this country is an example of this situation.

    4) The proposed course of action is in conflict with apparent dominant scientific thought. The nation continues, decade after decade, to throw vast amounts of taxpayer money toward environmental projects which will will likely never be able to compete in the marketplace due to basic science.

    There are other reasons but this covers the basics.

    When you press a liberal on the other hand, their responses tend to quickly lead to the arena of feelings and emotions.

    1) The proposed action is offensive or hurtful. Publicly celebrating a religious holiday offends those who are anti-deists or who follow a doctrine not in line with the holiday.

    2) The proposed course of action is “unfair”. Reducing the overall income tax rate returns more earned money to those who initially have higher incomes than it returns to those who initially had no income.

    3) The proposed activity allows excessive independent choice freedom of action (the corollary to this is that the choice potentially is “unfair” or “offensive”). The national health care law rather than simply allow establishment of insurance pools across state lines and setting up a competitive market (good things) went on to completely mandate purchase of insurance and then demand very specific types of coverage as opposed to offering a cafeteria or al-la-carte system where customers could pick the insurance best suited to their needs.

    This unfortunately lengthy posting gets to one of the central problems in the current political debate: facts versus emotions. Note that this ONLY applies to the true believers and probably no elected officials. In this situation it is almost impossible to have a reasoned debate since one side is almost devoid of reason.

    1. You must remember that there is a religious left whose job consists of text-hunting to support the secular line. They don’t really get people who govern their politics by their religion rather than vice versa.

      1. You mean, such as when President Obama told Americans that deporting millions is “not who we are” and cited Scripture, saying, “We shall not oppress a stranger for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too.

        Leaving aside whether that is a proper and accurate representation of any Biblical admonition, is there any doubt that President Obama (and his supporters) would adamantly condemn any Bible quoting which opposed their agenda, nor that they formed the policy and then found the verse?

        1. When we quote Scripture we’re “forcing our Beliefs onto others”. When they quote Scripture it’s un-Christian to disagree with them.

        2. “You shall not oppress or afflict a resident alien, for you were once aliens residing in the land of Egypt”

          The change is just enough to make me uneasy.

      2. Mary, ALL of the Left is religious. All of it. It IS a religion, which is the reason behind the behavior Sarah describes. Try arguing with extreme pro-life individuals that abortion should be permissible in cases of rape, and you’ll get pretty much the same experience. I have personally tried this experiment – and that’s when the light went on about the Left.

        Some members of The Cathedral’s religion (there’s a reason it was given that name) practice Taqqiyah, and are officially members of other religions. However, it’s easy enough to see the truth when their public religion clashes with a fatwa from their real religion.

        Once you understand this many things fall into place.

  5. Yeah, “African-American” is silly, especially when no one says “European-American”. Of course, most racial descriptors are absurd. “Asian”, for instance. They mean Southeast Asian, of course, but Asia is a whole continent with everything from Indians, Iranians and Caucasians in the mix.

    1. Kim Du Toit may be considered African-American but he’s not Black. I wish we could go back to colors as descriptors for people. White, Black, Red, Yellow etc.It makes me think of a box of crayola crayons.

      Actually I despise groupthink. There is no block of people called Black. There’s Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Toussaint. etc. We need to go back to the old fashioned virtues mentioned in the Copybook headings. Work, Thrift, Sobriety. Family.

      1. “There is no block of people called Black.”

        This. I had a colleague in academia tell me one of his students didn’t want to be called Black because he was from a different culture than those who were called by that label. He said that while his skin was the same color, his values and behaviors were the opposite of those mostly negative ones displayed by the people he knew who went by that label.

        1. There are a couple of ways it makes sense. One is simply a fast way to describe looks, ‘he’s black’ or ‘he’s white’ are easy starting points. The other part is for doctors, from what I have read for example people with African forefathers can have somewhat different diseases and reactions to some medicines than people with mostly Caucasian ancestors.

          But the most important part in our daily lives is looks. Which probably means that Black, White, Asian etc, or whatever new labels we will invent for the groups which share the same general looks will stay in use for quite a while.

          1. The downside is that one can follow the general tendency over a cliff. I’ve heard of a girl who was not diagnosed with cystic fibrosis until she was eight because she was black, and statistically, it’s a white disease. (Diagnosis happened because a radiologist glanced over her X-ray without knowing it was her and asked who the cystic fibrosis case was.) Unfortunately, given averages and distributions, that may be incurable.

          2. And because people tend to be attracted to people who look kind of like them (e.g., people from the same ethnicity) and cross-ethnicity marriages are rare, those ethnic groups are going to be around for quite some time, too. And those labels will continue to be used, because it is sometimes useful to be able to describe people in broad categories. Just as you pointed out, Pohjalainen.

      2. There’s a marvelous Frazz cartoon where Caulfield, having been called a person of color, went to the paint store to find out what color he was. Seregenti Sunset I believe.

        1. She also distinguished between rape and rape rape. Of course she was castigated for it by both sides.

          1. The problem in that instance was that the crime she was talking about really was “rape rape”. She assumed Polanski’s crime was merely statutory rape, when in fact the victim explicitly told him “No.”

        2. Whoopi has said a number of sane things, both in character and out. “I have a PhD. in comparative literature, so I stay stoned so I don’t get mad” being an example.

          The problem is that she apparently can’t connect the sane things she says into a coherent pattern of thought; the drivel she’s surrounded by always seeps in.

          1. Yes — I recall when she was “involved” with Ted Danson and they dressed up in blackface for Halloween to make a point. Whoopie is a classic example of the perils of bad companions.

        1. Yeah, but by now that ranks up with being blocked by Alec Baldwin or Alan Colmes on twitter. Pretty much anyone who has had a contact has that distinction now-a-days

    2. The irony is that Asia and Orient originally meant what is now the Near East. I blinked the first time I read a writer describing Israel as the Orient — but the dividing line between the Orient (the land of the rising sun) and the Occident (the land of the setting sun) was between Greece and Turkey.

    3. May whatever god there may be help me, but I am going to defend Obama here. If I am trying to convince someone that my policy is good, there is nothing wrong with me refering to their beliefs to do so even if I do not share those beliefs. Of course misquoting or taking those beliefs out-of-context is another thing entirely.

      1. The problem is that Liberals claim to want to “keep religion out of Politics” and condemn Conservatives who “quote scripture”.

        So it comes across as Hypocritical when Obama (or other Liberals) quote Scripture.

        1. When they object, it’s generally wisest to go straight to Martin Luther King Jr. and ask what they’ve done to eliminate the Civil Rights Acts.

            1. No, it’s that he argued for them on religious grounds. When a man quotes the Bible when directing you to vote, obviously that illegitimates all that he argues for.

            2. IMO the idea is that since Martin Luther King Jr. used openly Christian themes in his speeches therefore if you’re against “religion in politics”, you should be against the Civil Rights Acts.

        2. There is also a cynical manipulative quality to such usages, especially when they scream about George W Bush (for example) wanting to impose his faith on America. It is not an act of “good faith’ to employ devices which you would deny to others. Downright Alinskyite, in fact, that “holding them accountable to their own rules” thing.

          Kind of like kicking a fella in the chin then admonishing him to stick to the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

          For some reason I can never use that phrase without hearing the sequence from 3:18 – 3:58

    4. Genetically speaking, there are three major racial groups: Africans, East Asians, and Caucasians. Humanity started with the Africans; the two others result from two independent sets of evolutionary adaptations to colder climate zones (caused by population pressure — a hunter-gatherer lifestyle can only tolerate very low population densities — and the Great Ice Age). A pretty good description is in Nicholas Wade, “A troubled inheritance”. (Wade, a retired NYT science writer, predictably was the target of attempted character assassination when his book came out. Yes, leftism *is* a church, every bit as oppressive of thought as the medieval RC church was at its worst.)

  6. Great post. My parents raised four children on a bare-bones income. All of us finished higher education, mostly by working one or two part-time jobs all the way through.

    Two of us are sensible and compassionate; two became bulliers with the attitude “my way or the highway”. Liberals are wanna-be fascists.

  7. Quibble points that I think most of us are not catching. A: Only the renegades that settled the Northeast were religious- Puritans who disparaged general Christianity. The original immigrants were General Christians that settled in Virginia. The Mayflower dropped off in the New York area while in route to Virginia, liked it and made a separate contract for land there. They were the ones who imposed a Centralized concept to government and imposed the early religious laws. It is from the Northeast where the present modern Liberals came from and and as John C. Wright pointed out, modern Liberals are descendants of ‘Puritans’. Unfortunately, it is they that write the history books and we know little of Virginia.

    B: Socialism defined- The government provides goods and services. Many of our conservatives brethren say that the Liberals try to run the country as a business and don’t know what they are doing. That is a mistake. They do understand what they are doing- It’s called managing a monopoly. And, as all monopolies (I don’t think they exist except as government agencies and prove why they don’t last for the same reason) their policies are exactly the way they are intended. The aim is to create management and customers and that means the middle class (suppliers-competition) mus be reduced to customers in order to fully establish your monopoly. Therefore trying to argue business with a Liberal is useless if you try to discuss the free market concept. Of course, the average Liberal has no idea that his/her leadership are monopolistic and one gets very frustrated in trying to talk common sense to the average Liberal.
    It’s Monday and even coffee is not a good kickstarter.

    1. I had a Eureka moment when I realized that progressiveness in this country was directly descended from the Puritans. An anointed elite who were the only ones going to heaven, the “duty” to make everybody else follow their prescriptions, etc, etc. It explained a lot.

      As far as ‘open-mindedness’, I’ve seen more on the right than on the left, but that’s “just” my personal experiences. If your positions are all based on the feels, I’m guessing it’s hard to be open-minded.

      One thing that infuriates me is those incredibly stupid “studies” that purport to show the opposite, in which people who don’t believe in AGW are put down as “close-minded. Argggh. Those people are so blind they are incapable of seeing their own blindness.

    2. Some refinements to my earlier post:

      I agree with your first position. What we call modern liberalism has a nasty totalitarian streak to it. This is not just limited to the strong affinity for such leaders as Pol Pot and Stalin by those in the trenches but also the apparent lack of moral hindrance when pondering the use of military force against domestic troublemakers. Some extensive reading of the comments of Diane Feinstein are especially troubling.

      The second position should have been stated that the national government cannot run anything like a business in an efficient manner. I would not necessarily say that the goal is to create a monopoly but to 1) provide a basis for buying votes 2) ensure that the correct mix of skin colors, sexes, and handicaps are represented in the workforce, and 3) pay off political cronies.

      At the level of True Believer, they may FEEL that the service or good is too valuable or essential to happiness to be trusted to the private sector and therefore must be provided by the government regardless of the actual cost. After all, that is the only fair and just way to make sure everyone gets an equal share..

      1. Without getting too deeply into the accounting woods, there are ample good and sufficient reasons that government cannot and should not be “run like a business.”

        Businesses, for example, do not generally need to concern themselves over whether an expenditure has been authorized and the funds allocated. Business operations are more concerned with efficiency, government operations are more concerned with stewardship. In theory.

        Discrepancies between practice and theory are a whole different matter. Both suffer a tendency of employees to advance personal interests over and above their institutional function.

        1. RE Business – Agreed. The celebrated Founding Fathers probably realized this as well leading to their initial creation of a severely limited central government. If there is less to do, there is less to screw up. Push as much work as possible down to the state and local level so there can be more oversight and fewer opportunities for graft, corruption, etc. etc. etc.

          I get what you mean by authorisation and allocation. One of the great problems of our national government seems to be that they are no longer concerned with authorization and allocation either (tongue not too much in cheek).

    3. Many of my ancestors left Ireland and England because they were Catholic (or Protestant, whomever was out of favor at that moment) and settled in Virginia and Maryland. It wasn’t just New England.

  8. Not about open-mindedness, but related … there’s a book entitled “Who Really Cares” that shows at numerical length the chasm between “liberals” and conservatives in walking the walk — putting their money where their mouths are — supporting charity. In very short summary: conservatives give more money by percentage of income, especially to the causes of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, etc. They also do far more charity in terms of personal time invested in charitable works. The author is a liberal and mentions that fact in the book, noting his own surprise at the numerical results, which says a certain something about even this man who was courageous enough to let the numbers fall where they may and not to corrupt the data to suit his prejudices. So sad, really.

    1. Amended to add: in this book, liberals were seen to give more to cultural charities, such as art museums, orchestras, etc. It was the only area in which they were more generous.

      1. They also give more to private schools that their children are attending.

        If you bring up these statistics, they will try to disqualify first all giving to churches, and then all giving to religious charities.

        1. To be fair, that’s a natural reaction when steeped in group-think power dynamics; from that POV, a Christian donating to a Christian organization must appear something like a Republican donating to the RNC — it can be dismissed as self-evidently self-interested, and not “charitable” at all.

          I once speculated on John Wright’s blog that one of the reasons many progressivist voters felt their policies to be “altruistic” was because the types of government spending they wanted were all in areas that they didn’t expect to need themselves, to benefit people with whom they had almost nothing to do personally: food stamps, homeless or battered women shelters (always in other neighbourhoods than their own), methadone clinics, child protection services, etc. When group identity becomes more important than personal identity, this is a natural side effect — only statements or actions “against interest” are given any kind of credence.

          1. During the 2012 campaign, many people automatically dismissed Romney’s donations due to his religious obligations. Whether the fact that he was religiously obligated was actually relevant, they then ignored that Romney donated considerable sums of money above and beyond what he was religiously obligated to donate.

      2. We often also under-report charity work. Does it count as a donation if it isn’t to a recognized charity? Most folks around here think not. Or if it is for a relative or family friend. Some of us don’t mention the time, labor, and materials we donate to churches when there is someone we don’t even know in need.

        I must admit I have a soft spot for museums, though. Living in the Appalachians, it’s hard to travel *without* crossing some Civil War/Revolutionary era battlefield, fort, first town/courthouse/outhouse in X town/county/state, and so on…

        1. Mother Teresa basically said charity begins at home. At your own supper table. So by her standard, yes, it all counts.

          And churches use the money donated to them for more than just the pastor’s Cadillac (/snark). They provide services or donations for the needs of the community.

          I know some lefties don’t consider it “legitimate” charity if donated to a church. I don’t consider it legitimate charity if donated to an art museum. Philanthropy, maybe, but not charity. But that’s just me.

          1. But how will we get really important and avant-garde art that will instruct the soul without charity to an art museum? I mean besides tax dollars?

            The state of Colorado has a law that says 1% of all capital budgets must go toward art. My college spent money LEASING art works because they had to spend that money and that was the easiest way to do it.

            1. Is the requisite type of art closely defined? Because I know of some lap dancers performance artists who would be delighted* to help meet some of those art requirements.

              *In at least one instance, literally; you see, she starts with an outfit comprised of strands of LED Christmas lights …

              1. I guess the classic bulb strands would be too hot… but searching for the one that’s burnt out could be an interesting evening…

              2. I’m not sure but I think it has to be something physical like a painting or a sculpture. If you’ve driven into or out of DIA lately you may have seen Blucifer, the large blue demonic horse that killed it’s sculptor.

                I imagine getting a short in her strand of lights would be suffering for her art.

            2. And yet, somehow that “funding for art” can’t be used to make the buildings themselves prettier…


          2. Makes sense that donations to art museums are philanthropy. Historical museums I’m more familiar with, and any donations of cash could be seen as charity as much as philanthropy- the regular employees make around minimum wage if they aren’t volunteers. *chuckle*

            Ironic, that they don’t consider charity when given to the church, as most of the ones around here do more to help the poor than any non-profit* I can think of off the top of my head. They’re less focused on what kind of minority you are than actual needs, y’see, so they *obviously* have their priorities bass-ackwards. *eyeroll*

            *:Does it count as a non-profit when the throughput is in the teens, percentage-wise, or even less? Can’t say that fits my idea of charity on the face of it…

          3. She got that from an older source; in 1st Timothy, it’s laid out that the church’s charity should go to those widows who have no relatives, because when the widows have relatives, the relatives should learn that piety begins at home.

            1. Probably the source of our general culture here that we take care of those under our own roofs, then reach out from there …

  9. “Amended to add: in this book, liberals were seen to give more to cultural charities, such as art museums, orchestras, etc. It was the only area in which they were more generous.”

    I would not be surprised that there were a few very large donations by very rich liberals that offset the many smalls ones from conservatives. I know that Bill Gates has given large sums to the Seattle library as one example.

    1. For another example, giving a Van Gogh painting to a museum, with a “donated by” tag is a way of avoiding capital gains or estate taxes. The recipient institution gets to pay for the maintenance, security, insurance and attendant costs of ownership while the donor gets to look generous as all get out while receiving a sizable tax benefit.

      Not that any liberal would be motivated by such mean considerations.

  10. Of course being a conservative is not easy in some regions and some industries. I don’t discuss loudly anything about my views because I don’t like having my soda spit in or my car keyed. I also don’t discuss politics at work because I would like future promotion and possibly some consideration when my position is cut. I have been burned before.
    However, in my darker moments, I have to ask if I am complicit for my silence, now.

    1. My company actually has a “Social Networking” policy which could be used to come after people like myself. Whenever I post anything that could potentially be harmful from that perspective, I make sure no one from work can see it.

      1. Well, I can’t prevent them from seeing it here, but unless they are specifically looking for things I say on the internet in general, no one who would care about it would be visiting this blog, and I already had plenty of damning comments out there before I found out that it could matter, so screw it, but I do protect myself on Facebook.

    2. I think it’s sad that Conservatives and indeed anybody who even the least bit moderate goes around on eggshells simply because we are decent people who don’t want to be in constant screaming matches while they scream at everybody who even get’s the least bit out of line. And almost nobody calls them on it and says that this is inappropriate.

      1. A friend of mine went to Harvard–he’s a conservative, albeit not as much of one as I.
        Two kids from New York came up to him at orientation or something like that and asked, in low tones, “Are you a Republican?”, presumably on the basis that he was from Alabama. “Yes,” he replied, uncertain of why this question was being asked. “So are we,” they said in the same low tones. “We don’t talk about it very much.”
        And that, folks, was when I knew I never wanted to go north of the Susquehanna River to live.

    3. No, just quiet.

      (I scare coworkers by walking up and speaking to them. They don’t notice me and I apparently startle them when I ask a question.)

  11. The left wing of my family is coming south for Thanksgiving weekend. I’ve been reading about the Riemann Hypothesis: the zeta function and prime numbers… It is about the only safe topic we can discuss.

      1. Numbers without any political significance are safest. I do know lots about probability theory, but if asked, I will limit myself to solitaire, poker and coin flipping. Perhaps the Monty Hall conditional probability about the three doors, a car behind one, and he shows you a sheep behind another door. Scot heritage lets you get away with sheep pretty safely. Goats may be considered anti-Islamic.
        Chemistry is usually safe too.

  12. Their minds are open. They are open to reasonable ideas from responsible persons. They are not about to entertain radical notions from wild-eyed reactionaries — that way lies madness.

    From William Voegeli, author of The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion:

    It’s been more than 50 years since William F. Buckley first complained, “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.”


    Liberalism, as liberals understand it, is not a philosophy, ideology, body of doctrines or a mode of interpreting political reality. It is, instead, nothing more than common sense and common decency applied to the work of governance.

    It follows directly from this premise that opposition to the liberal project is necessarily senseless and indecent. Viewing themselves as simply nice people who want the world to be a nicer and nicer place, liberals regard conservatives as either mean people who want the world to be a mean place, or stupid people who can’t grasp that impeding liberalism means impeding the advance of niceness.

    Convinced that no intelligent, decent person could take conservatism seriously, liberals believe it is not necessary or even possible, when engaging conservative ideas, to go beyond diagnosing the psychological, moral or mental defects that cause people to espouse them. Liberals claim to understand conservatives better than they understand themselves on the basis of seeing through the cynical self-interest of conservative leaders (and funders), and the fanaticism or stupid docility of conservative followers.
    MSNBC Shrill Is No Accident. It’s How Liberals Really Think.

    Read the whole thing; it’s short and its getting linked by Instapundit and Powerline, among others.

  13. You discredit the conservative movement with your wildly inaccurate statements, Richardson.

    It WASN’T “rabid” hamsters. It was “ebola-infested” hamsters. This invalidates your entire argument. You might as well have typed “you’re” for “your.”

  14. BREAKING: No indictment in Ferguson.

    I think you guys are in for some “post-racial utopia” tonight. 😦

    1. Lots of reporters standing around in the streets waiting for mayhem. The camera slowly pans across…people standing around. And reporters watching people stand around. And riot geared police standing over behind the drug store, watching the reporters watch people stand around.

      As to fashion and costuming, the people standing around are a mix between normal clothing and I-wanna-be-an-anarchist bandana masks, with the occasional Guy Fawkes groupie gllimpsed. Also notable, the local PD are not swatted up, just in traditional police-colored helmets-with-faceshields plus riot shields for the reserves and uniforms plus yellow traffic vests for the ones all over the place on the streets.. And all the handheld camera work is making me seasick. The reporters are pretty much the most heavily armored people on the streets, with full body armor on several, and I think I saw rifle plates on a couple of them.

      Oh look, it’s going out live on the frelling BBC.

      Wait, people who were standing are starting to walk around, and the handheld camera work is getting even more herky-jerky. I don’t think I saw camera work this bad from the Iraqi invasion from embeds who were under actual fire.

      Uhoh, the first casualty – one of the female reporters appears to have got her camera neckstrap caught in her hair.


      1. I hope you’re right. The last thing they need is any more people getting killed. What infuriates me is that the “Violence never solved anything” crowd are busy agitating for unrest and making excuses for any rioting that might happen.

        My response to such people is unsuitable for a family forum like this.

        1. Unfortunately it does not appear that my hopes for a fizzle are coming to pass.

          I’ve seen lots of tear gas, broken windows at the local Quiznos, and a dumpster on fire surrounded by thirty network camera operators. Reports of gunfire from the protestors seen firsthand by newsies, fired into the air for now. If the PD built up their tear gas inventories enough they may be able to disperse the mobs long enough and consistently enough for the protestors to get tired and go home, but that’s a pretty thin hope at this point.

          One BBC reporter on the ground sounded like he wanted the job of tactical coach for the protestors until he got a whiff of tear gas and had to hang up – “They are falling back from the police tear gas, but that’s really futile – the protesters will just regroup at the next intersection where they will still be a force to be reckoned with!”

          BBC now switching between reporters watching people standing around at what I assume is the courthouse, and a helicopter shot of one police car very much on fire somewhere else.

        2. I saw “If you’re white and say you hope the protesters don’t get violent, you’re part of the problem.”

          1. My response remains unprintable.

            Iowahawk, of course, has it nailed:

            “‘It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.” – Brigadier General Al Sharpton”

      1. The crowd fits the definition of “useful idiots.” They’ve been stoked up and primed to explode by those who want violence regardless of the grand jury’s decision. The backers of these protests are opportunists who wish to destroy America and will A.N.S.W.E.R. any jury decision, any government directive with the same thing.

        The nonsense they poured into the head of young Michael Brown about he “don’t have to take that crap” got that young man killed because some people had a use for a martyr. They’ll get more martyrs out of these “demonstration.”

        1. In fairness to the agitators, it may not have been the philosophy.

          Evaluating how a cop might respond to certain behaviors is a matter of risk assessment.

          Marijuana impairs risk assessment.

          Those cigars he was stealing are sometimes used to consume marijuana.

  15. A recent Victor David Hanson column reminds me of a useful tool to have in your kit for debating Progs: call them arrogant.

    As in “I could never be so arrogant as to tell somebody how much they should spend on insurance.”

    As in “I could never be so arrogant as to tell somebody they should borrow $100K for an ethnic studies degree when what they really enjoy doing is crafting machine tools.”

    As in “I could never be so arrogant as to presume to tell an author what was an authentic voice for their work, nor to declare the literary genre superior to any other.”

    As in “I could never be so arrogant as to tell a woman here children would be better off if reared by serial strangers while she worked a dreary administrative assistant job.”

    As in “I could never be so arrogant as to tell somebody how many children they should have, any more than I would tell her who to love, whether a man or another woman.”

    In my experience, Progs hate being accused of arrogance almost as much as they hate being mocked — especially as it tends to turn their arguments back against them. As so many of their arguments consist of little more than striking poses they are ill able to support their positions against such general accusations of arrogance and snobbery.

      1. Oops — yes, Davis. Obviously the keys on my board are too close one to another.

        I notice Thomas Sowell’s column today makes a similar point about Progressive’s snobbery.

          1. Cool, now I know who to dislike for coming up with such an elegant observation that I did not.


    1. “I would never be so arrogant as to tell someone in a wheelchair that he can’t have a medical savings account large enough that he can buy a new wheelchair.”

Comments are closed.