Leftism and the Dangers of Modernity
Humans have been inventing things that save and improve lives for a while, but we now realize these items of modernity can also hurt and kill us, and they therefore need to be controlled. Stuff like guns, subways, large sodas, and supermodels.
Two people were murdered by subway trains in New York City recently, having been deliberately pushed to their deaths. Some prominent New Yorkers suggested erecting walls or fences at all subway stations, though this might prove terribly inconvenient for the millions of daily subway riders. Two or three people are hit or grazed by New York subways each week — 138 in 2012, of whom 54 died; however, making subways people-proof is so costly and cumbersome that few are seriously considering the idea.
Unfortunately, such rational decision-making is not generally the case. Governments often, and hastily, impose “cures” for modernity regardless of the cure’s irrationality. Generally, the cure is ineffective or worse than the disease.
Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the United States, and its level of homicides has climbed higher as its gun control laws got tougher. Chicago suffered 506 homicides in 2012, a 16 percent increase over 2013. Connecticut’s similarly tough gun laws did not prevent a school massacre. Yet we now are bracing for an onslaught of irrational gun legislation.
Israel’s parliament passed a law last week requiring fashion models to bring a note from their doctor to every photo shoot stipulating that the model is not underweight and that her bodymass index is healthy. The same law also requires all media in Israel stop using Photoshop or other enhancement techniques to make models look more beautiful. Knowing anything about eating disorders should lead one to the rational conclusion that such a scheme cannot possibly be a fix: eating disorders require counseling and treatment, and adults have the right to free expression. Similarly, consumers will continue lusting for thin women — a law cannot “perfect” human behavior.
Good points in this article. The people the conditions they daily face can drive them insane so rather than putting more burdens on the people those who have the power , the authorities with the belief those who are appointed to rule have given this authority by God must be the ones who are cleansed of their sins as we see in John The Baptist response to the priest who came to him to be baptisted
Matthew 3
New International Version (NIV)
John the Baptist Prepares the Way
3 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[a]
4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with[b] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
This is the 1st heaven that comes down to the earth the cleansing of the priests
What does that have to do with anything in the article?
This blog would be ever so much more interesting and useful if bloggers like waxwing01 would confine their religious thoughts to their respective churches. This life-long Christian and formerly very active congregational participant will stop looking at these blogs it waxwing01 and others of his ilk start to find space here.
Simply put … we are being presented with a very real choice – being brought about gracefully by the exposing of corruption in our “big” government and live examples
that we cannot protect ourselves from ourselves. The Choice? Make the State a god OR rely on the God that crafted a vehicle (the constitution) for free men everywhere to govern themselves. The left (and others), seem to think we can do better than God and promptly erect an “in your face” monument (big government) proclaiming to the world that, “we will make history”.
The U.S.A. is now a reminder to the rest of the world that God alone is the author of our freedoms; and as we gravitate back towards our Founding Principles this will become more and more of a witness to America’s strength – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The fact that Piers Morgan called our Constitution, “your little book” and that Ben Shapiro gracefully trounced Piers’ every deceitful argument is living proof that the left’s godless rhetoric CAN, and IS being nuked. Boehner! Pay attention and be encouraged!!!! It has begun!!!
I’ve noticed that The Ten Commandments focus entirely on the individual. Likewise the Constitution focus on individual liberty and responsibility. This is exactly opposite of the focus of Progressivism and Marxism which seem to focus on how to control others to fulfill their Utopian desires.
Treat people like monkeys, that’s what they become like.
Or…
Treat people as though they were made in the image and likeness of God, and are moral agents responsible for what they do, and thereby bring out the best in people.
God crafted the Constitution? Wow!
The creation of the Constitution went hand-in-glove with the creation of a more powerful federal Government, and everyone knew it at the time. The question, even then, was if the Constitution could indeed keep a powerful central government in check. The Anti-Federalists did not think so.
The Constitution was a POLITICAL document, which could be and has been amended both specifically by the enumerated amendments and informally by the Supreme Court or just a changing culture. Some righties are starting to look at the Constitution, as they do the Holy Scriptures, but then both were determined by the votes of human beings as to which versions would prevail. There are many problems with the lefty statist agendas, but can we at least try to stay somewhat rational about things?
@Dwight
I could be mistaken but I think Husky was referring to this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
Well, for what it’s worth, that’s the Declaration of Independence; God is never mentioned in the Constitution. Also the Founders ASSERTED that the rights were God-given, but I have never found the Bible to be a great human rights document. What have I missed? Tex’s pal Saul/Paul, actually is quite inclusive IF one believes, but, from my recollections, he does not care much about citizens’ right vis a vis guvment.
By the way, when some people (the earliest Christian abolitionists) got around to asserting that these rights also applied to blacks and women (the birth of “modernity?”), the vitriol and violence against those people was vicious, even in the North until the 1850′s. Yeah, modernism has its dangers, but the events leading up to the Civil War make our current squabbles look like small change.
Just curious, why do you suppose that there was such widespread outrage at the Abolitionists by a people who had asserted God-given rights for “man?” Apparently, sinful man will accept being told he is sinful in certain ways, but definitely not in others. I certainly don’t claim to have many answers here, but I do know that the Nation has come through some really tough times. Changes were always messy, painful and always had unintended consequences, but we HAVE come a long way, baby. Just think about the Nation during Reconstruction.
Yeah….for what its worth….let’s just ignore the Revolution happened first for reasons the colonists had made abundantly clear to the world and especially England and just cherrypick the Constitution to death until we can define what is right by the consensus of petty little professors in the humanities.
You gotta love atheists. They mistake their outlook for an intellectual achievement and not a personal point of view.
That was a rebuttal to the idea of the divine right of kings.
Ok, but it does give one pause to know that the greatest number of Americans died contesting the issue of whether or not the individual right of a man included the right for him to enslave another man. Yes, lefties are trying to legislate all sorts of odd things, but they also know that there is a tradition of the Southerners (or Barry Goldwater) opposing legislation which history has shown to be just and necessary.
The fact you would waste your time or credibility grumbling about bicycle helmet laws shows the difficulty of some alleged libertarians in gaining traction. Choose your battles more wisely because you come across as a neanderthal on that one.
I am not wasting my time grumbling about bicycles. I used it to make a point of a larger cultural mind set, since there is not space to write a footnoted dissertation of how Americans have changed in the last 40 years.
Read Jack Williamson’s With Folded Hands. Maybe you’ll get it, or maybe you’ll say he wasted his time grumbling about robots.
“Yes, lefties are trying to legislate all sorts of odd things, but they also know that there is a tradition of the Southerners (or Barry Goldwater) opposing legislation which history has shown to be just and necessary.”
So? Lefties want to legislate what we can eat, drink, light our homes with, how much we can travel, who we can spend our idle time with, and which of our religious beliefs we’re allowed to live by. Shouldn’t that be opposed? Is regional bigotry any more excusable than racial bigotry? Shouldn’t we apply our powers of reason to policies, rather than supporting them simply because they’re opposed by a despised population?
And perhaps the “just and necessary” has been exceeded long ago? I submit that it’s “just and necessary” to demand that government — at all levels — treat everyone equally, but we’ve gone so far that truly color-blind merit-based hiring has been declared “discriminatory” and have designed Congressional districts on the theory that your skin color determines who you can represent.
Your mother is your creator. Every man has one.
Wow! Talk about obtuse. The point was that both the 10 Comandments and the COTUS are concerned with individuals ruling themselves. They are couched in individual terms, not collective terms. It is assumed that one person will rule him or herself rather be ruled as part of a collective group of individuals which is why so much of the second part of the COTUS, specifically the Bill of Rights, concerns itself with the rights inherent to the individual (as in one person).
This is what it means to be a free man or woman and to have liberty. It means to assume the responsibilities of ruling oneself rather than needing to have an all-powerful government do it for you. The left has steadily eroded the idea of liberty to mean only “do what I want, when I want” which is only half the equation. They leave out the part about assuming the full consequences from those free actions you take and assuming all responsibilities for your person (even the yucky ones like paying for your health care, housing, food, etc.) because your are free.
The American Revolution and the Constitution that was established over the objections of Antifederalists were events emanating from the Enlightenment. Aristocratic and monarchist elites have been crying bloody murder ever since these turning points in the history of the West. For an example of the what was then viewed as the puritan contribution to U.S. history see http://clarespark.com/2013/01/12/hate-hard-liberty-quick-fixes/.
The lasting legacy of 9/11 will be the government imbeciles’ overreaction to irrational fear, including massive compliance, disruption and regulatory costs in the prevention of methods that won’t be used again, to compensate for the political correctness and our national cowardice in pretending all cultures and all religions are comparable.
Thank you liberalism and nanny government. May we have another – like more gun control?
There is a clear logical progression from President Bush’s infamous claim–days after the 9-11 attack–that “Islam is peace”, all the way to female passengers being felt up by TSA agents at airport security checkpoints.
Once you rule the true nature of the enemy to be out of bounds, you’re forced to turn your own country into an armed camp under siege.
No, there is no connection. Airport and airplane security could have been better addressed with nationwide concealed carry.
The “Islam is peace.” nonsense has nothing to do with the stupidity of the TSA.
“Nationwide concealed carry”???
You would feel comfortable if a bunch of American Muslims each carrying a gun boarded your plane???
Hey, al-Qaeda would have preferred to have had those 19 terrorists carry guns instead of box-cutters on the planes on 9-11.
Remember: Nationwide concealed carry means that American citizens would have the right to carry guns no matter how radical their political views.
Since they’d be drastically outnumbered and the cabin locked, yes.
Note Major Hassan picked targets as unarmed as the school kids at Newton.
Also, the Fibbies seem to have had some success in penetrating the AQ cells attempting to operate here. The odds are very good they’d be arrested before setting foot on the plane.
“You would feel comfortable if a bunch of American Muslims each carrying a gun boarded your plane???”
How are they behaving otherwise? And why do you believe Muslims should be disarmed? Do you fear them?
If we did the sensible thing and deported all of our enemy aliens (a/k/a Muslims) and considered the conversion to a foreign enemy totalitarian ideology (a/k/a Islam) to be the same as renouncing US citizenship, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Muslims should not be on our soil at all, whether armed or otherwise.
As harsh as it may sound, why do we not have the right to keep a certain group of foreigners from entering our country? Especially when their society’s most frequently repeated phrase is “death to America”. But really, in terms of our sovereign rights, we should be able to exclude Tibetans because we don’t like their hats.
“The lasting legacy of 9/11 will be the government imbeciles’ overreaction to irrational fear,…”
The “government imbeciles” were simply using the occasion to do what “comes naturally” for them. The people are the real imbeciles for letting them do it.
“Run, Chicken Little, the sky is falling!”
Both the creation of DHS and the TSA were urged against – along with the Patriot Act. Everybody who cried out in protest was demonized at the time.
I noticed, at the time, the liberals did NOT protest these things. They knew the time would come when they could use these tools against the American people and they passed these laws.
No – what liberals protested back then were the things that actually worked – like overseas wiretaps. They called it domestic wiretaps, but it wasn’t. Those things all got published in the New York Times.
My great lament of the Republicans. They create cabinet posts and regulatory agencies (e.g. EPA and DHS) that they SHOULD know will be fed steroids once a Democrat is in the White House. It’s sad that so many of the out of control regulators are the dream children of the GOP.
By 1970 the federal government had become so bloated that no new cabinet posts or agencies ever need to be created. The concepts of reorganization, right-sizing, consolidation, and streamlining do not exist within the Federal government. Only expansion exists.
“but crack down hard on illegal gun trafficking”
Correct me if I am wrong, but was Fast and Furious not a prima facie criminal operation in gun running? If we are to have any moral standing we should first go after the corruption that is the obama administration.
Let’s just say it is a target rich environment.
When I was a kid only some kind of weird fop would wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Now everyone does it. That tells you where our culture has evolved to. We’re playing with a tipping point where people worry and fuss more over what can go wrong than what can go right.
No sector of American society will be unaffected; eventually every moderately risky activity will be reined in. Right now the NFL is being looked at hard and by extension college and high school football because of concussions. But they already have helmets.
The NCAA thought the North Dakota Fighting Sioux’s Indian name and logo was a peril on some level but not slamming kids into the boards during a hockey game. Watch NHL film of goalies in the ’50s – they’re not wearing masks.
There’s so much risky stuff we do that it can only be dealt with a few at a time. Already federal buildings and America are safer because no one can smoke a butt within 125 ft. Hopefully the diabolical Arabs won’t flood Israel with Photoshopped images of thin models.
“When I was a kid only some kind of weird fop would wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Now everyone does it. That tells you where our culture has evolved to.”
Yeah, it’s just unreasonable to avoid head injuries where easily possible.
I grew up in a small town where virtually all the children had bicycles which were the main form of public transport – there were no buses in the town and few parents transported their children to school. No one wore a helmet and yet I do not remember a single case of head injuries. There certainly were accidents with grazed knees and elbows – but this may in part be due to the fact that no roads were tarred.
You’re right. My feeling is that if you lack the confidence to ride a bike without falling off, you shouldn’t ride one. It’s not like it’s walking a tightrope.
Any way, the point was to show how much we’ve changed in our attitudes. Wear a helmet 24/7 for all I care.
And don’t leave the house.
Meteors.
“My feeling is that if you lack the confidence to ride a bike without falling off, you shouldn’t ride one.”
And WTF do you think confidence has to do with it? I have fire extinguishers in spite of the fact I’m confident I won’t have a fire. I have a firearm ready to go although I’m confident I won’t have to shoot anyone today.
Here’s your sign.
Just to be clear, I do not support Bllomberg’s diktat at all.
But wearing a helmet when biking is just common sense.
Confidence has everything to do with it. It’s called audacity. If someone doesn’t even have the audacity to ride a bike without a helmet, that’s little short of pitiful.
You’re talking to someone who used to climb erupting volcanoes for a hobby. I’m deaf to your way of thinking.
@Tom Perkins – Common sense, my tookus! I rode a bike all the time when I was a kid – everybody did – and I had several large scraps from trying to do stupid tricks on the thing. Not once in all those times did I crack my noggin. Scrapes aplenty, but no head injuries.
I remember when they put that stupid law into practice. It was totally ignored until the next generation could be brainwashed that that was how it was supposed to be done. That was just the first step in bubble wrapping our kids to forbid them any scrapes and acratches. Now they outlawed recess and PE altogether and then they wonder why kids are fat.
Everything about liberal policies is one of unintended consequences. But instead of EVER admitting they were wrong about something they just double down on stupid!
Congratulations that you are luckier than you are dumb.
I’ve done rock climbing. I’ve done caving. I’ve done diving. I may well yet cave dive.
If my finances permit, I will break the sound barrier in a homebuilt aircraft.
You propose that daring can make up for a lack of skill and planning, you’re a fool.
“Scrapes aplenty, but no head injuries.”
Me too. Head injuries are rare when bike riding, not to mention, I don’t recall there being any helmets for it in existence when I was a kid.
This doesn’t mean there is any wisdom or prudence in not using them now they are available.
Cliff faces, caves and water don’t explode and kill people. Pacaya blew its top 24 hours after I slept on it. I woke up in Guatemala City the next day and it was raining black ash. A rock thrown 25 klicks had broken an airplane window at the airport.
What did I do?
I went back the next day, of course.
Sans helmet.
Ha, ha, ha.
Exactly, we had a local meteorologist telling parent to put helmets on their kids because there might be hail … HAIL.
1. Who let’s their kids play outside in the hail?
2. Really? You’re telling people to put their kids in helmets to avoid being hit by hail?
Bike helmets don’t just save lives, they also prevent lifelong disability. It’s a simple cost effective measure. As far as the Israeli models, the law does not restrict them and and its not restricting ME. The same law that requires media to be truthful in advertising. I see nothing wrong with that. The article writer and most of the replies here see a “nanny state”, when in fact it’s not always the case.
I’ve heard rolling up into a foetal position in your basement ought to extend one’s life considerably.
I think you’re all missing the real problem. Its not whether wearing a bike helmet or not is good thinking, it’s whether government, particularly the Federal government, should be requiring their use. There’s a big difference between education (it’s a good idea) and nanny state dictats (you will).
Eventually, everything will be a “public health issue.” Statists can argue that ultimately, your personal health has an impact on the economy and is therefore the public’s business. Hence the Government’s willingness to take away your cigs, guns, and Big Gulps.
Government “help” is necessary for many things, but more of it is not necessarily better. It’s like a favor from the Godfather. Someday – and that day may never come – the Government will ask you for something in return. Money and votes are the least of it.
You are correct in your statement that everything will become a public health issue. Mayor Bloomberg has drawn a line in the sand. Prior to this there were no restrictions on soda. Now there is, ie. The line in the sand. Future restrictions will be merely adjustments to the line.
I think of the line in the sand when I think of Eugenics. Without eugenics no one is put to death because of some sort of disability. For example someone who is so severely retarded they cannot live anything close to a normal life. Once you decide that it is better to put these people “to sleep”, now you have drawn a line in the sand. Further adjustments could include people with sever physical disabilities. Now you are merely adjusting the line. In the future you could add pedophilia. Note that eugenics doesn’t look bad if you are on the side deciding who would be included.
My point being, do not draw the line in the first place.
Try riding a bicycle through the auto traffic in New York City sometime.
The taxi drivers there drive like maniacs.
Small-town America is only one small part of America.
The Lonely Planet guide to Bali states that learning to ride a motorcycle there for a Westerner is “suicide.” That’s the word they used. Read that and still, that’s where I learned to ride a motorcycle. I did it for 5 months. Almost never wore a helmet, and even that was a batter’s helmet. Only did it where there were cops who’d fine me.
Bach home, and for years, used to ride a bicycle weaving in and out of traffic like a madman. Never had an accident.
Be sensible, like Maw and Paw. Don’t expect me to endorse it. I laugh at danger.
Like this. Haw, haw, haw.
“Try riding a bicycle through the auto traffic in New York City sometime.”
Why?
I have as much desire to go to NYC as I do to go to hell. One rather approximates the other, in my estimation.
Agreed. But why should someone in small town America – or the rest of America, for that matter – be required to wear a bike helmet because it’s dangerous to ride a bicycle in New York? Why should all New Yorkers be forbidden to buy large sodas because some New Yorkers are fat? Why should the majority always be penalized for the problems suffered by or caused by the minority?
It’s bad enough trying to find a place to park a bicycle where somebody won’t steal it when you are busy at school or work or in a store. The lock ends up weighing as much as the bicycle!
Problem is, on top of all that aggravation, it’s such a hassle to deal with a bike helmet and all the other protective stuff they want you to have, that not many people bicycle any more. You just don’t see cyclists out there on the public streets in most towns. That’s the most probable reason why there are much fewer bicycle-related head injuries.
Exhibit A.
Why not just avoid bikes and peril altogether? That damned Mayflower was plenty dangerous.
Millions of American children were prevented from living lives that could have lead them to injuries. It is called legal abortion. If you are already dead nothing can kill you!
We do not stop arson by banning fire.
One of the more sensible comments coming out of this tragedy.
Although some left/liberal bedwetter somewhere will surely try.
Look to California for that. Burning trash and in some areas BBQ’s have been banned for decades. San Francisco has just banned burning a fire in your fireplace – for warmth.
Damned certain will try, yep. Those people have this shared illusion that they can control everything. We are merely Cattle to them.
Try to control me, and a 5.56 will impact your forehead at a significant velocity. Seeya.
Bring it on, Lefties. Because you know what?
The Cattle Will Fight Back.
I’ve always summed my brand of conservatism simply as “leave me alone!”.
Addendum: “…or else!”
My own version would be “When I need your ‘help’ I’ll ask for it. Until then, leave me alone.”
“We do not stop arson by banning fire.” But if it saves just one life, …
And then there are the CAFÉ standards. It is estimated that these fuel saving standards cause the death annually of about 4000 of our fellow citizens due to the flimsy weight-reducing structure of vehicles made necessary by compliance. Thousands more are injured. A civil and logical society would look for a solution to this tragic situation by pursuing more domestic sources of available energy thus enabling stronger and safer vehicles to be used. So what do the statists do? They up the ante. For them it’s “screw saving those relatively few poor souls killed and injured we’re going to save the entire planet”. But where is the supporting evidence that they are saving the planet? They have none so they make it up as we have found them doing. Private gun ownership saves more lives than are lost by same by a vast amount. When this fact surfaces what set of lies and illogic will the gun-grabbers turn to in order to shoot it down? Emotional hysteria most likely. We will bear witness to the progressive’s sickening march-of-ignorance in the coming days as the genius of Joe Biden and his crew is revealed.
Example from Wikipedia article on CAFE standards: “A National Research Council report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s “probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993. A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to ’2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year.’ The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG.” But liberals ignore these deaths because they don’t fit into their firm belief that higher MPG ratings are necessarily better. And no one can attribute a specific death to CAFE standards, so there are no natural opponents to raising mileage requirements.
The same will be true of guns. Lives lost for the lack of a gun will be ignored while any criminal shooting like Aurora or Newtown will be “evidence of the need for tighter controls.”
I haven’t looked at the CAFE standards, but I would note that if the objective is to use less fuel, then the standards should mandate out of existence
1) Automobile air conditioning;
2) Power transmissions and steering;
3) Power windows and similar accoutrements.
Air conditioning units add weight and require additional fuel/power. “Standard” transmissions use less fuel than power transmissions; power steering, windows, etc., must all be powered by the engine, which means more fossil fuel must be used.
Given that there is no proposal to take these obvious steps that provably reduce fuel consumption, one must conclude that the proponents of the “eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too” standards are not serious in seeking their stated objectives.
The left is saving the planet by killing people. They know not, what they do. Agents of Gaia, they trek through our institutions, zombie-like, on a mission to destroy what man has wrought. What you call a Bill of Rights, they have also, but call the Bill of Needs. Why do you need a gun, why do you need a gas guzzler car, why do you need a house with three bedrooms and two baths? Gaia doesn’t approve.
Among the vast ingredients found inside any successful organism resides a self-destruct mechanism. Yin Yang. Once triggered, it grows and grows with little resistance until it’s effects can’t be ignored or reversed. That’s where we are today: most of society hold beliefs that are repugnant to society as we once knew it. Up is down, and vice versus.
For instance, paying your “fair share” disregards the many who pay not a “share” at all. Owning a tyrant-killing assualt weapon is equated to a massive over-kill approach to Bambi blasting (which, like hunting overall is accepted, somehow). There must be something wrong with anybody who needs more than 10 rounds to kill a deer.
This genetic mechanism has been triggered and runs unobstructed in society today.
John Boehner just found that you can’t negotiate with it. Innocent gun owners will soon find that they can’t negotiate with it either. ‘It’ will redefine and transform America if ‘It’ can’t be stopped. Fortunately, ‘It’ needs money to survive and that may be the key to defeating ‘It’. Starving the Beast is the last hope for freedom lovers, period. Starve it to death.
CAFE standards…..
Interesting to note that OBOZOs wheels do a fantastic 8 mpg….
The danger of modernity is fools in constant search for causes. Self justification comes easy, just latch on to the cause of the week, as well as a few of the old ones.
There’s a bigger issue.
There are a lot of human beings who are control freaks. They spend every moment of their lives scanning their surroundings for opportunities to control other people. They appear in many forms. Men who essentially capture women and enslave them, usually becoming wife-beaters or stalkers. Management gurus who devote their lives to discovering new ways to manipulate workers (not all control freaks are totally bad). Tiger Moms who effectively destroy their children s’ lives by planning their first 21 years down to the second and insisting their children excel at stuff they have no interest in.
Another characteristic of control freaks is that they are almost invariably high performing people who become very good at what they do
Unfortunately, the most mentally defective control freaks become politicians where they are able to exercise their manias on millions of people. We all know the headline names, but just as there are 10,000 minor actors for every Hollywood star, there are 10,000 or more officious and bullying bureaucrat and petty politicians for every other one who becomes famous.
We have about 490 famous ones who ran to Washington DC, the center of the control freak universe, just as soon as they possibly could, supported by about 5 million less famous ones in the surrounding areas, state capitals and your local drivers license bureau. And they have all of the power enhancing technology of the modern world at their disposal. Hell, they CONTROL it.
THAT is the overwhelming problem of our age. In toto, they are thousands of times more dangerous than all of the individual mass murderers who have ever lived. And no amount of evidence, no amount of failure, no amount of death and destruction that they cause will ever deter them.
They have to be defeated just like the black plague carrying fleas had to be defeated.
“It has been well said that really up to date liberals don’t care what people do as long as it is compulsory.”
~George Will (emphasis added)
weo, you have hit the nail on the head. the biggest problem humankind has are the control freaks. they have been with us from time immemorial and they will always be with us. my pop psychology explanation for their need to control comes down to a number of driving forces:
1) a biological or genetic predisposition for aggression and dominance – just like you see with wild animals where some are more dominant than others. these types of people are not able to overcome their innate biological need to dominate and thus pursue a life of control and dominance.
2) a clinical, biological or genetic disorder that makes them clinically mentally ill. examples of these are borderline personality disorder, manic depression, hypomania, and the like. these clinical disorders make people feel out of control and so they compensate by exerting control over others and the institutions they are associated with ( for example, getting into management positions, becomimg politicians, etc.)
3) behavioral-based mental disorders. unlike biological or genetically-based mental disorders, behavioral mental disorders leading to the need to control are caused by upbringing by parents (or lack thereof), culture, traumatic experiences (like getting raped or bullied), and the like. these types of people have been kicked around so much that it drives them to get control over their lives, thus driving them to control people and institutions.
4) academic pedigree also drives the need to control. people who graduate from “top” colleges believe their “superior” intellect justifies and requires them to rule and control others. it doesn’t make sense to at least some Ivy League graduates that any one other than someone with a similar academic background should be telling him/her what to do. more importantly, these folks believe, the pedigree actually requires them to control and rule over others because society has said they are the smartest (due to their acceptance by an Ivy school) and if they are then that necessitates their controling others because the smartest people should be making the rules and telling everyone what to do.
5) philosophical indoctrination, usually be educated people, is also a driver of control. people who are indoctrinated into some revolutionary ideal or convinced that they are victims of some vast societal injustice are instilled with a desire to control others. examples of this are the feminist movement, unions, and the global warming cult.
6) ancestry. there are those whose historical ancestry drives them to control. this is typically found with members of royal families and members of the aristocracy….such as the dukes, lords, earls, princes, etc.
the founders of the country put together a political system where it would make it difficult for the control freaks to take over and impose tyranny over the population. but as we are finding out, the control freaks are so numerous and so full of endless energy that they are managing to get around the checks and balances that were put in place, many times by just ignoring the law or Constitution, or just making up laws via the courts or executive orders. they are clever and devious. many of them don’t even understand what they are and why they do the things they do. others of them, however, do. whatever the case, all are comitted to exerting their control by any legal, borderline illegal, and illegal means they can find. it is difficult for normal people to combat them in everyday affairs because we can’t address any of the underlying factors that drive those folks to control others (see above). the control freaks have, essentially, a perpetual nuclear reactor inside them that can never be extinguished by normal people, other than by killing them. so, the only legal way to control the control freaks is to try to limit their reach through laws (which unfortunately they break anyway) and also to hope that many will suffer internal mental meltdowns and become too incapacitated to exert their plans on us, but that doesn’t happen very often.
it is because normal people are at the mercy of the control freaks that the 2nd Amendment is so important. We need a way to take on the tyranny that may happen in the future because of them. Short of identifying all of the control freaks and putting them in prison or killing them off, neither of which i am advocating, there really is no other way to ensure freedom and liberty for the masses other than the right to keep and bear arms. i mention imprisioning and killing the control freaks only to illustrate that there really is nothing normal people can do about them, other than 1) continue to try to limit their plans and efforts thru every legal means possible and 2) reserve the right to bear arms in the future if the control freaks ever lead us into an all out tyranny.
yes, and see eon’s excellent analysis just below.
The tragedy of it is that for about the first 9700 years of civilization, the Control Freaks were fully in charge. 1% controlled everything; the other 99% were serfs and slaves. Occasionally, Aristotle or Gutenberg emerged from the 1% and gave humanity something useful. So, by 1775, humanity had mastered primitive agriculture, had tamed horses, and had newspapers, wooden buildings that burned down a lot, and many people had outhouses. All in all, advances over caves, ripping animals apart with your teeth, and wiping yourself with grass.
Then the founders declared freedom and put a framework in place to enable it. 230 years later, our poor people are so obese that its the biggest health problem in the world, in your back pocket is a device with instant access to the accumulation of the world’s knowledge, and 50% of the world refuses to work at any useful occupation because the other half can supply them a lifestyle that kings would have died for 231 years before.
But the control freaks want to rip it down.
They want more power.
control freaks suck.
fight them legally everywhere. and fight them just like they fight us: in the trenches.
and just in case, keep your powder dry and weapons locked and loaded.
Actually, that’s not really true. for most of human history, the rulers demanded their due, but otherwise didn’t care too much what you did (so long as you didn’t try to overthrow the government and paid your taxes on time). I think that it was C.S. Lewis that said he’d rather be ruled by an admitted tyrant, who oppressed everyone equally but otherwise left you along, than by one of the “progressive” moral busybodies who try to micromanage your lives.
“The futile quest to save us from ourselves.”
I’m not convinced that the point is saving lives per se.
More like the futile quest to control every aspect of our lives is what the Nanny Bloombergs and Leftists in general seek.
On guns, specifically, Joey Biden, Mikey B. et al. and etc. don’t go anywhere without “protection”.
Barack has just afforded himself armed protection for life. The school his daughters attend in DC has, besides Secret Service, no fewer than 11 armed security guards.
Actually nanny bloomberg is a little thief. The whole point of the soda ban has become clear at the new Brooklyn Nets games. Rather than paying a little more for a 32 oz. that will last the game you are forced to buy 2 16′s at full price. Nice for the concessions who can now charge more and be completely not at fault in the eyes of the public.
If Napolean had sunflower seeds instead of testicles he’d have been Mike Bloomberg.
Of the three criticisms of the Israeli law against underweight models given by the author, one (“such a scheme cannot possibly be a fix” because “eating disorders require counseling and treatment”) sets up an arbitrary standard of which the law predictably will fall short, regardless of the law’s actual purpose; one (“adults have the right to free expression”) invokes a principle according to which governments also may not exercise any restriction on public nudity or pornography, which is absurd; and one (“a law cannot perfect human behavior”) seems to misunderstand the purpose of having laws, which is not to “perfect human behavior” but to promote the public welfare by, in this case, preventing people from doing certain things, which are then called “illegal.” Then the author can’t make up his mind whether it’s “eating disorders” or the public’s supposed “lusting for thin women” which is the real problem that the law fails, according to the author, to solve. How can one judge a law if one doesn’t know what it’s for?
I wouldn’t have a problem with “progressives” pursuing their chosen Utopian dreams, even though I seriously doubt that they can ever be made to work. My attitude toward that is the same as my mother’s attitude toward burning the American flag as a “protest”. She was opposed to any law restricting it, because (a) it conflicted with free speech, and (b) she believed that everybody had the God-given right to make a fool of themselves in public. Which was pretty much her, and my, opinion of “progressivism” in all its forms.
No, my argument with progressives is that they refuse to mind their own business. It’s not enough that they get to live in their fantasy world; they demand that everyone else sign in as well. And like the Hotel California, “you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave”. Try it, and they have big ugly guys at all the exits. And outside, they will try to hunt you down and drag you inside. Where beatings will continue until morale improves.
I suspect that progressives as a group are composed of a small core of megalomaniacs and nihilists, who seek to control and/or destroy everything around them. They are facilitated by a larger group of people who either (a) want to be with what they think is the “in crowd”, (b) want to hurt others for their own amusement and love the idea of being able to be self-righteous about doing so, and/or (c) think there’s a payoff in being part of the scam. Progressivism, in this respect, has a close resemblance to a “pyramid racket”, aka “Ponzi scheme”.
The best answer to “progressives” is to be found in the works of F. Paul Wilson. His philosophy of KYFHO (Keep Your F**king Hands Off) goes as follows;
The thing about this that I find fascinating is that the average progressive is wholeheartedly in favor of it for himself (“It’s none of your business what I do with my body!” “You’re not the boss of me!”), but will never agree to extend the same courtesy to you, or me. Apparently in the belief that he is inherently smarter, wiser, more sophisticated, more compassionate, and just plain better than everyone else.
This is why I suspect any attempt to have a reasoned debate with progressives, on any subject, is doomed to failure. They aren’t interested in any opinions other than their own, and believe that anyone who is in any way different from themselves is both wrong and probably evil into the bargain. You’d have more success debating the legitimacy of Judaism or Christianity with a hardcore Islamist. (BTW, progressives seem to share hardcore Islamists’ opinions on those two subjects.)
The only cure for this, I believe, is the application of KYFHO. Defined as “Leave me alone. If I want your help, I will ask for it. And while I don’t mind you running your life to suit yourself, I will not allow you to run mine.”
I would love to hear progressives explain why this sort of philosophy justifies their using drugs, while at the same time it prohibits me from driving an SUV. Or owning a firearm.
Or even getting a 20-ounce Diet Dew. After all, isn’t what I put in my body… my business?
clear ether
eon
Allowing you to do what you wish with your body is counter to their addiction to power; they want to control you in ways that are in accordance to what they think is appropriate. If you want to kill your baby, that is just fine & dandy but if you want to own a semi-auto, forgeddiboutit.
Control is the name of the game. Elimination is the only solution. The only good red is the dead red. Remember? Boy, were they right on that one!
This is why I suspect any attempt to have a reasoned debate with progressives, on any subject, is doomed to failure.”
Or as I saw so aptly put in an earlier commentary…”Never expect that you can reason with somone for whom the process of reasoning never existed in the first place.”
Or this, as I once saw posted on my Army company’s bulletin board, “Reason? There is NO reason! Just Company policy”.
“The best answer to “progressives” is to be found in the works of F. Paul Wilson.”
I thought you were referring to throwing them to the Other.
The killer concept here is that of “Externalities” – think second hand smoke, dumping your used oil in a common creek and – the mother of them all – CO2 emissions. The control freaks abuse this concept to justify more and more rules, regulations, fees and taxes. And the more government sponsored collectivism is created (i.e. Obamacare), the more every little thing can easily be tagged with some external affect that must be controlled to reduce the impact on the rest of us (i.e. forbidding 32 oz sodas and requiring bicycle helmets as a method for controlling government heath care costs.)
Unfortunately there is some validity to the concept and this makes it even more dangerous and insidious. If allowed to be go on unchecked, those of us not aligned with the political elite, when we are not engaged in providing goods and services, will spend our off time sitting in a warehouse with a government approved feeding tube, catheter and virtual reality helmet that runs government approved leisure time scenarios while the EPA monitors our intake and output of various chemicals and substances.
And in the end, you get E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” (1909);
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html
The scary part is, many progressives think this would be a good thing. (“Death to the enemies of Holy Mother Gaia!”)
clear ether
eon
French protest at Eiffel Tower against plan to legalise gay marriage and adoption By Tom Heneghan JANUARY 13, 2013
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/01/13/french-protest-at-eiffel-tower-against-plan-to-legalise-gay-marriage-and-adoption/
“the constitutional amendment prohibiting all liquor was a disaster.”
Hey, it got Joe Kennedy out of East Boston and propelled him and his spawn to national grandeur! Without Prohibition there were no “night trains” from Canada, and without night trains from Canada there were no interceptions, no cuts for police officers in New England, etc. Prohibition worked for their economy!
Who got us prohibition anyway. Ah! Those busybodies at church that Jesus used to call hypocrites… Oh, well!
Those hypocrites and a more modern form — “progressives”. Prohibition came at the height of the belief in state power in the US.
I believe it was also a particularly noxious brand of church progressive who helped get that amendment through.
“Israel’s parliament passed a law last week requiring fashion models to bring a note from their doctor to every photo shoot stipulating that the model is not underweight and that her bodymass index is healthy.”
What do you expect there are 3.2 million Jewish mothers in that country.
“Sit down, I’ll fix you something to eat. It’s this fashion thing, you look so thin. They don’t have food in Paris? Why don’t you go back to school like your father said? Maybe you might meet someone…”
Ron Paul: Wealth Belongs to Those Who Generate It – Not to the Government!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMfkruUxUjs
Since you state: “Chicago suffered 506 homicides in 2012, a 16 percent increase over 2013,” I’d be interested to know how the SPY did in 2013. Apparently someone a PJM lives ‘backward in time,’ as Merlin was alleged to have done.
eon, unfortunately a strategy of “just leave me alone” will not work. the control freaks (liberals, progressives, fascists, marxists, etc.) simply will not leave you alone. they can’t. they are prgrammed to control others (see my response above to weo). it is incumbant upon the normal people – us, the ones they want to control – to fight them each and every day….forever. the control freaks will never go away. never. they will always be with us. fightimg every day is difficult for normal people to do because we just want to be left alone….we do not have the intrinsic energy to do that, unlike the control freaks who do. this makes it difficult for us to manage and limit their efforts. but we need to find it in ourselves to take them on every day….forever. it is not enough to say, “if they come for me i’ll exercise my 2nd Amendment rights”. by that time, it may be too late. it is better to get involved with existing organizations, or start your own, to 1) counter the control freaks at their every turn, and 2) take the offensive on them and promote the freedom and liberty agenda that we have. This is the only way to preserve our freedoms. to ignore the control freaks by saying just leave me alone or trying to go on the defensive when they really ramp up their efforts is a prescription for losing the war against them. Nobody ever wins a war merely thru defensive acts….you can only win by going on the offensive.
Knowing anything about eating disorders should lead one to the rational conclusion that such a scheme cannot possibly be a fix: eating disorders require counseling and treatment, and adults have the right to free expression.
Yes, but this isn’t what the rules for models are aimed at. Professional models don’t have “eating disorders”, they have unrealistic professional standards (for more about which see “The Screwtape Letters” by C. S. Lewis) based on unrealistic public opinions as to what constitutes beauty. If they want a job, they have to be very slender.