5 Revolting Facets of American Culture
1) An elevation of victimhood
In a weird reversal of how the world has worked since man was raised up out of the dust, it has become good to be a victim in America. In fact, many of the people held up as “victims” in our country are loving every second of their “victimhood.”
The best recent example of that phenomenon is Sandra Fluke. Here’s an unaccomplished 30-year-old student who went to Congress and demanded that other people be forced to pay thousands of dollars a year to subsidize her birth control. It’s like the set-up of a stand-up comedian’s joke, except that when people responded with the natural punch lines that featured lots of “She’s a slut” jokes, Sandra Fluke was treated like a victim. Next thing you know, she’s on TV, she’s treated like a heroine, and she gets a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention. For a fifth-rate mediocrity like Sandra Fluke, her supposed “victimhood” was the best thing that ever happened to her.
Then there’s bus monitor Karen Klein. People felt sorry for the nice old lady who was bullied by kids on a bus — so much so that they chipped in more than a half million dollars to help her out. However, this was an adult whose job was to keep kids from being bullied. How many kids on that bus must have been abused because she was so completely unsuited to the job she willingly chose to take on? At the end of the day, she wasn’t a “victim” in any meaningful sense; she was just a failure at her job.
Does treating people like this as heroes strike anyone as healthy or good for the country? At best, victims should be pitied, not celebrated or rewarded.
2) A fascination with freaks, failures, and deviants
For many Americans, the easiest way to get your name in the papers, get people talking about you, and make money isn’t to be great at something, it’s to be a dirtbag. Make a sex tape, flash your vagina getting out of a car, or just behave like a jackass and everyone will be saying your name. If you don’t think that’s true, then why do you know who Snooki is?
It may have started with Oprah, Phil Donahue, Geraldo, Ricki Lake, Montel Williams, Jenny Jones and the rest of the trash tabloid hosts putting women on TV who didn’t know who their baby-daddy was, but it has devolved even further. Now, we have Jersey Shore, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, Small Town Security, and other sub-normal mediocrities being put on the screen for the amusement of the masses.
When you reward bad behavior with money and fame, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get more bad behavior. Snooki may be a skanky loser, but I wonder how many young girls are thinking, “A skanky ‘loser’ with money, fame, and a TV show sounds pretty good to me!”
Related at PJ Media: Narrative Wars: Slap the Honey Boo Boos with Truthaganda
3) Infantilization
America is a country that was born in revolution and peopled by some of the most independent human beings ever to walk the earth. Our ancestors explored, conquered, and settled this nation under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, even in many places where “government” was more of a theoretical concept than a functioning entity. Now, the government educates your kids, gives you money and food if you don’t have a job, picks which toilets and light bulbs you’re allowed to buy, runs your health care, and takes care of you when you get old. Meanwhile, if you’re so stupid that you hit yourself in the face with an iron until you fracture your skull, you can probably get a lawyer to sue the manufacturer for not putting a warning label on its product telling you not to do that.
We’ve become a society where adults are encouraged to behave like children. As Mark Steyn has said, “A society of children cannot survive, no matter how all-embracing the government nanny.”
4) Hyper-sexualization:
Sex is a healthy, normal, and good part of life. For that matter, so is water. But just as you can drown in a flood, our society is drowning in sex. It saturates our magazine ads, TV, and the Internet to such an extent that gyrating women in bikinis trying to sell us beer or teenagers having sex on TV barely even catches our attention.
It has gotten so bad that one scientific study failed after the scientists couldn’t find any men who hadn’t seen pornography. Hyper-sexualized Halloween costumes, nudity on the Internet and in film, and musicians wearing outfits that would have been considered risque for prostitutes fifty years ago have become the norm. Worse yet, we don’t know how to stop ourselves. Any time someone suggests that we turn the dial down a notch or two from acting like a society full of pimps and whores, you’d think it was a suggestion that we put everyone in formless robes and chastity belts. There should be some setting between Leave it to Beaver and a strip club that we can embrace as a country.
Related at PJ Lifestyle: What Father Would Permit His Young Daughter to Wear a Bikini? and The Difference Between Sexy Bikinis and Slutty Thongs — And Why Little Girls Should Wear Neither
5) Indifference towards societal disintegration
Thomas Sowell had it right when he said, “Civilization has been aptly called a ‘thin crust over a volcano.’ The anointed are constantly picking at that crust.”
We seem to start out with an assumption that our culture is healthy, vibrant, and can’t be damaged by any of our societal tinkering. It’s hard to understand what would give anyone this impression when roughly a third of the population has been divorced; 73 percent of black children, 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites are born outside marriage; and 1 out of every 32 Americans is in prison or on parole.
Yet we slur Christianity, encourage gay marriage, talk up single motherhood, push deviancy in TV and movies, mock morality, and scoff at codes of honor. Throughout most of history, civilizations haven’t looked at attempts to stave off cultural rot as religious zealotry or prudishness; they’ve considered it to be simple common sense.
****
More from John Hawkins at PJ Lifestyle:
In no particular order:
An indifference to obesity, slovenly dress and coarse public behavior
A sentimental, bumpersticker faux-patriotism in lieu of the robust and risky real thing
The elevation of college football into a civic religion
Overregulation and censorship in “the freest nation on earth”
Lawsuit-mania
Sorry, but your ‘list’ sounds more like your own personal rant to me.
1. “Dressing down” is considered a method of self-expression, much like any other individual activity in a free society. You make it sound like everyone should dress to the 9′s even if they’re out in their yard gardening. Or perhaps you’re just upset to see folks show up in church w/out their “Sunday best” on. When a church has a ‘dress code,’ it prevents less fortunate folks from attending out of fear they’ll be ostracized for not having a “Sunday best.” Even Jesus would not qualify to enter such a church! How “Christian” would it be to exclude the One you are there to worship?
3. Not every woman hates football. It is a passtime, not a religion. Maybe you should do something you enjoy while your husband is glued to Sports Center on TV? Just saying.
4. “Overregulation and censorship”?? Really? Wow. I’m not seeing any of that on TV these days. In fact, most of TV material is so ‘low-brow,’ tacky, and plain disgusting that there is hardly anything worth watching anymore for the (apparent) minority of viewers who yearn for better quality programming.
If you were a Bible reader, you might have come across the following Scripture: 1 Corinthians 6:12, “Everything is permissible for me (freedom)–but not everything is BENEFICIAL.” (Emphasis mine.)
America’s freedom is all about self-government, which means SELF-CONTROL so we don’t tread on another’s Rights. Our individual freedom only extends to the tip of our own noses. When we go beyond that, we are trampling on someone else’s Right to Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness. That’s selfish!
5. I agree there is a great need for tort reform here. But, that would require all the members of Congress to somehow get their greed under control and ban lobbying by special interests (of which the Bar Association is a very wealthy participant). (Congress is supposed to serve ALL Americans, but special interest groups deny some segment of our population their equal rights by claiming their own particular group is somehow BETTER and/or more worthy of concern.) Can you see tort reform happening in such an environment anytime soon?
If we want to fix our countries many ills, We The People must DEMAND that our government officials adhere to our Constitution in the manner in which our Founders intended. To know what to demand, all qualified American voters MUST educate ourselves on who our Founders were, what they believed, and their intent for this nation.
Sure, it’s a lot of work, but if you CARE about your country, you would do what is necessary to preserve it!
1….. ‘slovenly’ is not ‘dressing down’ – look it up in the dictionary………
2…. Americans handle their flag and the symbols of their country too casually to have serious respect for them. The esteemed things aren’t the cheapest and most assessable things, y’know?………
3…… Universities should be involved in education and furthering the stock of human knowledge. We have the NFL for football, that’s enough……..
4….. ‘low-brow’ and ‘tacky’ is trivial, safe, noncommittal and relatively harmless. Serious discussion and intent is otherwise; being risky, dangerous and likely to offend. What is it we’re seeing on television, now?……
5…… Universal litigation is a sign we have fallen as a people. Infantile, risk adverse, self-absorbed and pugnacious for no reason, “we, the people” don’t need to demand anything from anyone. We need to become better people, more worthy of being Americans. This is not a problem of education (another grievance…..) but of character. Stuff a rag in it and get off yer arse…… right, let’s go…..’>……….
Uh, there would be no NFL if it weren’t for college football. Colleges invented the game. The NFL came into existence almost 50 years after the college game started.
They also invented the computer, but they managed to let that go……..
The whole college football as part of societal breakdown is lame, its a game girls get over it.
Enough degeneracy and deviancy to go around without inventing strawmen.
How about vampire movies and “literature”? Or mommy porn, the shades of grey boooks top the best seller list?
Or how about attractive young girls who look like “the illustrated man” with tats unlimited? How about ear gauges that make people look like Deputy Dawg?
Add- Hip hop culture. When the media trots out an ugly, stupid POS like Snoop Dawg for his opinion on the election (I’m not voting for Romney because he’s a Mormon and only got one ‘ho), we’re on the slip and slide to Hell as a culture.
It’s fine to come to church looking like you just walked in off the street if you really did just walk in off the street. That said, you shouldn’t present yourself for Communion dressed like that.
Some people always get offended that they are expected to dress a certain way for church. You are expected to dress in a particular way for a swimming party or a date or evening dining at a nice restaurant. Why not church also? Granted, for church, the party, the date and dining, if you have a half-decent reason for dressing inappropriately, it isn’t a big deal. Dressing inappropriately includes both dressing too fine and nice as well as too poor and common. Some people do come or go to work right after church. Some people do have commitments that require specific dress, but still take time to go to church though they don’t have time to change. It’s the people who have plenty of time and money to dress correctly for the situation and don’t care or are too lazy to bother who offend.
Kathy, don’t you have your own column? This is the second time you’ve hijacked Mr. Hawkins rather insightful column early on in the responses. It’s poor form.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I link Kathy Shaidle’s stuff regularly, am a fan of her writing, and even invited her to write for me at Right Wing News (And she took me up on the offer). I’m flattered that Kathy posts in my columns sometimes…
You’re a gentleman to say so but the way she has posted is rude. Just my 2 cents as a fan.
Has Kutnicki posted a shameless link to her blog yet? “5 Revolting Facets of Israeli Culture!!!”
Let me challenge Shaidle’s “Indifference to Obesity.” What does that mean? Is someone’s weight your business?
Let me also challenge the posts against porn. Pornography can be instructive, they show porn to Pandas, for God’s sake.
“Is someone’s weight your business?”
Timely question. My answer is “No,” unless I have to pay for the consequences of that someone’s being overweight. That’s the problem, is it not, with universal health care? If the government says I have to pick up the tab for your health care, then I’m very interested in your diet; your drinking, smoking and drugging; your dangerous leisure activities; your driving habits; your sexual activities (STD’s, AIDS); and on and on. If I have to pay for your bad habits, then I want your bad habits regulated and punished.
On the other hand, if I don’t have to pay and there’s no danger to me, then you can have all the personal freedom you want. And that, my friend, is why I oppose government subsidizing of what are nowadays being called “poor choices.” I prefer freedom, but if I have to pay for “poor choices,” I prefer extensive, perhaps even draconian, regulation of “choices.”
So porn is an educational activity these days? That’s the first I hear about it.
OK, porn can be instructive if you watch it to learn new techniques, but how many guys watch it for that purpose, and how much porn of the same type does one need to watch to learn the “instructed” technique?
Pandas are an endangered species, so maybe they need to be “inspired” and stimulated to multiply. Humanity is far from being an endangered species and don’t strike me at all as sexually unmotivated (even in places where birthrate is low – it’s contraceptions, not lack of activity), so I don’t think porn is needed for that purpose in the human case.
She was reinforcing and adding a few thoughts to his very insightful post.
Isn’t that what we all are supposed to be doing?
Lots of posters at PJ comment back and forth. It’s called a “forum”, and it is an excellent one here at PJM.
Besides, what do you have against Kathy?
OH!!!!
Hawkins, methinks JMarie is in love with your cute little chucklehead!
What do you mean by “slovenly dress” and “indifference to obesity”?
Do you mean people who are totally indifferent to their personal hygiene or people like me who throw on themselves 10 NIS ($2.50) Bermuda trousers, a 10 NIS sleeveless shirt and 10 NIS plastic sandals to go out anywhere? Though I’m willing to fuss about it a little more if I’m invited to, say, a wedding – then I might even go to the length of wearing jeans and a tshirt (a nice tshirt – it cost me 20 NIS…). I don’t think I could bear dressing more formally, it’s so uncomfortable. Besides, isn’t it what’s inside that counts?
But seriously, I don’t like to invest that much time, effort, money and inconvenience in clothing because I have more important things to invest in.
By “indifference to obesity” I suppose you mean people who are fat and still dress like me, i.e. not adequately covering their chubby body parts, or maybe fat people who don’t diet. It’s difficult to diet when there’s so much food. Western societies are affluent and there’s cheap enough food everywhere we go. There’s some kind of food for sale 5 minutes walk in every direction from my house. In every route I take anywhere there will be several, if not several dozens, places that sell food. Being lean in our societies is a measure of either great genes (in this respect) or a great self discipline because you need to constantly avoid temptation when it’s all around you or exercise daily because most jobs, as well as most forms of entertainment, these days don’t require meaningful physical effort. I do both, but you can’t say it’s easy. I think that at least exercise is something that should be taught to children since birth as part of their daily routine. You can make it fun with music, playfulness and pretending it’s actually enjoyable, and it becomes quality time you spend with your child.
slovenly – slov·en·ly (sl v n-l) adj. 1. Untidy, as in dress or appearance. 2. Marked by negligence; slipshod. 3. untidy or unclean in appearance or habits.
Obesity – Obesity is an abnormal accumulation of body fat, usually 20% or more over an individual’s ideal body weight.
Before you ranted in response to Ms. Shaidle’s comment, perhaps you should have learned what the words mean.
So, you do not believe in dressing up a bit, looking your best? Do you think it has no effect? Do not others have to see you? Do they not see more ugliness in the world, because of you? Let’s say it is just you. We can deal with that, an odd occurrence. There is room in the design margin for you. However, when it becomes many of you, then it becomes freakish and ugly, and the world is a worse place.
Perhaps you do not accept this? Okay, let’s look at property. If the people in a neighborhood all maintain their homes and property, it is a pleasant place to live. Respect your own property, and you’ll respect that of others. What if one resident does not maintain his home to the standards of the community? What if the yard is unkempt, and there are junky cars, old refrigerators, and other trash on the lawn? It is a blight on the community.
Then, what if more lower their standards? The neighborhood gets run down, the good people move out, the low-class move in. Crime becomes rampant, because the people there do not respect their own property, and so, do not respect that of others. This then devolves into a lack of respect for others’ lives, too. Civilization collapses in that neighborhood.
When you insist on slovenly dress, and when you take poor care of your body, you are demonstrating a lack of care about the sensibilities of others. It’s all about you, with never a thought for others. It never occurs to you that we are being forced to tolerate a pig in our midst. We have to let you be, but that does not mean we have to like it, nor that we should remain silent about it. We may not force you to clean up your act, but we may pressure you to do so.
If you are a pig, fine, but do not offend our intellects as well, by pretending that it is okay. Stop trying to justify being a pig, because there is no justification for it. It is just sloth and gluttony. If you are a pig, just admit that you are a pig. Stop being defensive about it. Stop resenting us for seeing and treating you as a pig.
> So, you do not believe in dressing up a bit, looking your best? Do you think it has no effect? Do not others have to see you? Do they not see more ugliness in the world, because of you?
I find the notion that people have some sort of obligation to look a certain way because otherwise you find it repulsive.
Have you considered joining the Democratic Party? I say that because this is decidedly an unconservative perspective.
Ranted? Me? Where did I rant? I was in a humorous mood and my comment even included a bit of self humor, if you know what that means. I doubt you even read it before spewing your venom. Talk about ranting and “demonstrating a lack of care about the sensibilities of others”. But I get your point – if I don’t dress up to your liking, I’ll soon start trashing property and murdering people and eventuallu cause the collapse of civilization. But oddly enough I live in a neighborhood where most people dress more or less like me, yet crime rate is very low, even as a woman I can walk the street alone after midnight without fear, and people are actually nice to each other, unlike you. Come to think of it, I live in a country where most people dress very casually and crime rate is far lower than it ever was in the US, even in the past when your dress was more formal. Further more, in the past, as mzk1 explained below, we used to care far less about cloths. Ah, those were the good ol’ days, before we imported all the crap. I’d say our old elites rather disdained the preoccupation with appearance and saw it as shallow, materialistic and inauthentic. Yet crime rate was even lower back then, so I doubt carelessness about cloths is really tied to carelessness about people, high crime rate and civilizational collapse.
And you, sir, are extremely rude. I’ll take an obese and slovenly dressed good-hearted person over you any day, even if you dress in a white suit with a black bowtie every time you take out the garbage.
It probably should be pointed out that you (we) live in a country where until recently, it would be considered poor taste to wear a jacket to see the Prime Minister. Today things are changing a bit, but (aside from Chareidim like myself), “Sabbath best” means wearing a white shirt, not a suit and tie. Ditto weddings.
I do not see why anyone should care how much I weigh. Yes, there are health casre issues (so get rid of Obamacare already!) but in the period where that mattered more people had other issues (smoking and drunk driving to start with). If my wife is pleased with my appearance, then what anyone else thinks is of no interest to me. (Yes, I understand the issue with sloppiness. My personal beef is how much exposure is considered normal at work.)
Health issues, my butt. The workforce is (through so-called “wellness” programs) making it their business what employees weight. But if health is the issue, why don’t they find out how many of their employees are participating in lifestyles that, uh, might bring on a case of AIDS?
Oh, SORRY! They’re actually encouraging that one.
“It probably should be pointed out that you (we) live in a country where until recently, it would be considered poor taste to wear a jacket to see the Prime Minister.”
In the past it was considered poor taste for the Prime Minister to wear a jacket… Ben Guryon wasn’t known for his designer suits. I’m really sorry things are changing. I’m quite nostalgic for how they used to be.
My mother lived for years in a kibbutz, my older brother still lives in a kibbutz (even though the kibbutz isn’t what it used to be). That is the old-guard ultimate Israeli. The kibbutzniks had an idealistic contempt for appearances, dressing up, fashion, makeup, jewelry. As the song goes, the blue shirt is worth more than all the jewels. My brother is a prime example of that. He likes things natural, real and simple. It disturbed him when his bride wore a bit of makeup (that’s fake!) to their wedding (needless to say she didn’t normally make up). As a young man my brother would put on sandals for special occasions if he absolutely had to. Otherwise he used to walk barefoot all the time, anywhere. He still dresses in jeans and simple shirts. He also has a second degree in computer engineering plus a BA in philosophy. He’s still married to his first wife and is a loving father of 4. In the army he was a paramedic in a combat unit. Yet according to Mr. Malone he’s a pig, he makes the world ugly, doesn’t care about other people, and his mentality leads to civilizational collapse. Whatever. I really like his mentality. They don’t make’em like that anymore.
And yes, thankfully “Sabbath best” still means a white shirt. I’m so used to it that it never occurred to me it can mean a suit and tie (the Haredim is a different matter since you wear suits all the time). A white shirt symbolizes purity and it’s a modest dress. I associate the Jewish religion with modesty in appearance, not just in the sexual sense, but also in the sense of de-emphasizing appearance in favor of essence and not being showy. Simplicity is pure.
To me cloths have to be first and foremost comfortable. They exist to serve me, I don’t exist to serve them. They are there to cover my nudity. They don’t mean much more than that. I won’t invest that much in my appearance when there are more important things. And whatever I have to do, I won’t have my cloths get in the way. Which is why I won’t wear high heel shoes or uncomfortable cloths of any kind – they don’t make sense to me.
And I don’t care if people are obese or dress badly as long as they are good people. Appearnce is overrated and it doesn’t tell you as much about a person’s character as some of the commenters here seem to believe.
Kathy,
1) Agreed.
2) Agreed.
3) College Football is not a religion? I’m confused.
4) Agreed.
5) Agreed.
Great original piece. However I’m conflicted by the commentary. The 5 signs of cultural rot turned into people’s hang ups about there fellow man. Most of it sounds like whining to me.
The one thing that I would add to this list is the over medication (including self medicating) that is going on in society. Being blasted is a way of life. Children are zonked out on all kinds of drugs.
America’s problem with drugs is at the core of many of our problems. And when I say drugs I am talking about booze and prescriptions too.
I guess, by the doctor’s charts at least, I can be considered “formerly obese”, as I have at present writing lost thirty-five pounds and am now a good four pounds below what the BMI chart says I should weigh. So now I’m just overweight.
But it always disturbs me to hear or read someone taking gratuitous swipes at fat people… excuse me, the “gravitationally-challenged.” ;_)
I especially love it when a thin person, whose parents are thin, whose grandparents were thin, who are built for thinness, look down their noses at someone who struggles with weight. Particularly nowadays, when official opinion tells fat people to do precisely the opposite of what many of them should do. Eat a low-fat diet, the experts say.
I’m thirty-five pounds lighter today than I was seven months ago by doing the exact opposite. I’ve lost that weight on essentially a bacon-eggs-steak-hamburger-sausage diet.
Thought for certain my blood numbers would be worse. That’s what the experts say. Wrong again. My HDL is up slightly, my LDL is up slightly, but the triglycerides are way, way down. Total cholesterol is below 200.
But here’s the point: I’m not a different person than I was thirty-five pounds ago, and I won’t be a different person in another thiry-five pounds when I weight what the BMI chart says I ought to weigh. I’m the same me.
It’s not always laziness, slovenliness, or lack of willpower that causes obesity. Sometimes it’s just lack of knowledge. I fixed that lack of knowledge for myself. Some of us simply cannot, physiologically, get filled up by carbs. It can’t happen. For people like me, carbs are poison.
But what does the government do? Shove carbs in your face as the moral choice.
I am so very stinking tired of thin people who turn their noses up at fatties and expect nods of Pharisitic approval for their bigotry.
Hate to ruin a good rant with a correction, but…
> and am now a good four pounds below what the BMI chart says I should weigh. So now I’m just overweight.
Should have said: below the BMI threshold for obesity. At 5’10″, they say 209 is the threshold. I’m below that now, but it’s not what I “should weigh”, which is closer to 170.
Flip-flops.
There’s a few “elephants in the living room” that you didn’t mention, but that’s OK, I’m scared to mention them too, and I’m not even using my real name!
Speaking of elephants and cowardice…
The link/headline to this article on the site’s front page is offensive, despite a couple of flat-footed attempts to laugh.
‘Revolting’, ‘black mold’, pic of black chick, all side by side = an innocent accident? BS.
Startling no one else is energized to say so. Do you really think you’ve come up with a vote winner? Probably, you do.
The “Black Chick” is actually Nicole “Snooki” Pollizi, who is many things, but not black.
Thank you, I’m probably glad to say I’ve no idea who she is, BUT… the less-than-flattering picture is of someone ‘deeply tanned’. No one viewing it would see a whiter shade of pale or even close. In the context of the ‘accidental’ words (my ass), the purpose is to reinforce the idea of ‘tinted but tainted’.
Plausible deniablity? — my ass again. Offensive BS = offensive BS.
And it speaks volumes about many who post here, including some crappy editors.
Twilight.
Good one John.
Though you only mentioned crime in passing. But I am doubtful of a stat like that. “1 out of 32 Americans is in prison or on parole”? A raw number like that should be taken with a pillar of salt.
And the stats on pornography too. I am sure they are large numbers, but I have always been skeptical of the ones offered. You see, only problems get public funding, or any funding. Given this, I think we should lock up more people, not less. And I’m not really a law and order nut either. I would be a softy if I worked in the justice system. But just last week, I saw yet another conservative/libertarian on TV, complaining America has more people in prison than China, or Russia. Really? I doubt it. But if that is true, then it would be because dictatorships do not fight crime in the first place. Except for political offenses. Besides, every self-help guru on the planet will tell you, a comparative standard is the road to misery.
Only liberals say it is wrong to punish crime. I know what “stats” say. Ain’t buying. If it’s official, don’t believe it. Unless the government is denying it. Then believe it. (maybe)
Mr. Tobias,
Perhaps a bit of education is in order here. Libertarians are not necessarily “conservative,” as it is the Party of legalizing drugs and allowing all nations to obtain nuclear weapons–even one whose leader has many times publicized his intentions to anihilate at lease one other nation once they have obtained some!
Libertarians have a misguided–and inaccurate–view on addictive behavior, which causes them to claim drug crimes are not violent and the folks who commit such crimes should not be languishing in jail with murderers. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that murderers often are addicts, and being intoxicated will cause one’s inhibitions to disappear–thus allowing them to carry out violence without remorse.
Actually, Libertarians are independents who are located about halfway between Democrats and Republicans.
By contrast, I consider myself an ‘independent,’ but call myself a ‘Constitutionalist’ because my political Conservatism is located to the right of the Republican Party (because that Party moved left).
I simply used the same phrase others have used on TV to describe themselves. Though I did use it generically, I was not trying to combine them. And I wish this site had an edit feature (or does it?). What I meant to say about dictatorships, is they don’t really try to fight crime in the first place. People who flee them, are not just seeking “economic opportunity”, they are fleeing for their safety, and lives.
By contrast, I consider myself an ‘independent,’ but call myself a ‘Constitutionalist’ because my political Conservatism is located to the right of the Republican Party (because that Party moved left).
So where, exactly, does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to regulate drug use?
Libertarians have a misguided–and inaccurate–view on addictive behavior, which causes them to claim drug crimes are not violent and the folks who commit such crimes should not be languishing in jail with murderers. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that murderers often are addicts, and being intoxicated will cause one’s inhibitions to disappear–thus allowing them to carry out violence without remorse.
Uh huh.
The drugs made them do it. Forget the fact that most drug users are non violent and that the violence associated with distribution stems entirely from prohibition. And that personal responsibility and liberty are core conservative values.
Yep, it’s the drugs fault, not the people that commit crimes.
That stupidity used to be mocked by conservatives as the twinkie defense. Good to see that you’ve embraced your inner proglodyte.
Oh! Now I get it!
You belong to a political party that adheres strictly to your interpretation of what is right and wrong. Its belief system perfectly parallels your own. You have determined beyond all doubt, PRECISELY where the optimal points are located upon the graph of life, all based on the only source you will accept: you.
You, sir, ARE the problem.
It is a very immature individual who spends all their time picking nits. It inevitably leads to a loss of all perspective. Also, a sore neck.
Perhaps you should call your new political philosophy “Navelism”, and the new party “Umbilicans”.
Please let me know when you get your second member. I have time. I’ll wait.
I’ll agree here. Three cousins of mine, all brothers: One spent most of his adult life in prison for armed robbery, (in order to finance his drug habit). His brain fried enough that he stopped committing felonies while on parole and died at home. A second one killed the third in a drug deal gone awry (never proved, but the family all knows). Second one died in prison (murder this time, not drug dealing, but he did spend plenty of time in prison for that).
I thought I was the only one who thought that bus monitor was incompetent!
I agree Merrie,
For someone hired to maintain control over the kids riding the bus, she was entirely incompetent to hold that position.
Such a position would be more appropriate for a military retiree who’d spent their career as a Drill Seargent! LOL!
In her defense, if she had excercised any authority she probably would have been the one in trouble. I’ll admit, there are times that I forego punishing my children fearing the judgement of neighbors and busibodies. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t these days.
I agree it’s a very real fear but as long as you don’t ever hit your kids, the neighbors (and the school social workers) have no reason to intrude. Discipline away…kids crave limits.
My closest neighbors are a childless by choice couple, judging from my former childless self, I thought I knew everything. I would never do that to my kid, I would never feed that to my kid, blah blah blah. I knew it all, until I found out that I didn’t know much at all. Honestly, I have no idea how to effectively punish my kids. I am paralyzed with fear of being judged.
Exactly.
When I was in high school (this was a mere 8 years ago), the school policy was that it didn’t matter whether you got jumped or assaulted – if you were caught fighting, all parties involved would be suspended for equal amounts of time.
So, if somebody walked up to you and sucker-punched you, the official school policy was that you had to simply lay there and get your teeth kicked in while yelling for some teacher to come help. Lifting a finger in self-defense would get you the exact same punishment as the jackwagon that decked you. And of course, the only teachers capable of “helping” were the handful of coaches. So, if you got jumped, your choices were to fight back and get punished, or get KTFO and hope one of the football coaches saw it go down and could intervene before your lifeless body suffered brain damage.
The most vicious fights I ever saw involved “urban transplants”. They’d basically set about to kill each other, and there wasn’t a single fight that didn’t end in a big pool of blood and/or scattered patches of hair/weave.
What was the first clue?
Perhaps that she was a bus monitor! They’ve been useless since I was a wee laddie, and that was quite a way back into the time tunnel. They sit and chat with the driver, paying no attention to the kids, who, if they are healthy, normal children, are busily trying to kill each other, destroy personal property, and deface as much of the bus as possible.
They despised her like children despise all adults who have no authority about them, and now that most kids are never even taught any manners or social graces, they have become beastly, because they are beasts. The monitor is there because someone has to be, and she’d work cheap. It would take an expert in crowd control to keep the little thugs in line, possibly equipped with stun guns and a billy club… maybe even an RPG.
“Hard working civil servant”.
Next one anybody sees, please point them out to me. I’ve never seen one in real life.
Not one.
This…… and not performance at the candidate debates will determine who will win the 2012 elections:
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/10/04/the-character-test-in-the-2012-election/
Here; David dwells on the character reveal between the two participants, but in the end voters will vote for those they identify with and against the person and party they don’t. Myself, I didn’t and won’t watch the televised debates because I will identify and feel empathy for Obama and distrust and enmity towards Romney – and it’s my job to be a better person than that. The character test will be who the voters elect and their reasons for doing so………
Then, lzzrdgrrl, you may now feel free to hit YouTube or C-Span online and catch up on the big debate. I can guaran-dang-tee you that your emotions will flow to the right place – that is to say, you’ll have no problem rooting for the good guy. Have fun.
And Mr. Hawkins, looks like we hate a lot of the same stuff. Go for it.
Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, I can go on youtube and check out the highlights – should be entertaining. Keeping the perpetually angry child inside at bay is a struggle, but I strive to be better…..;>……..
Interesting list, and I agree it’s revolting. The problem is the chasm that develops between those who ignore the noise and focus on being a force of good in the world and those who cave to the culture of low expectations. Unless there’s less judgement there will be no honest discussion and when both sides stop talking to each other it’s the beginning of the end.
When a church has a ‘dress code,’ it prevents less fortunate folks from attending out of fear they’ll be ostracized for not having a “Sunday best.” Even Jesus would not qualify to enter such a church!
What about the Gospel parable of the wedding feast, where the man not properly dressed was thrown out? Yes, it’s a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven, but still, the idea that there is a way of dressing that is appropriate to the occasion and situation is what makes the parable work.
Dressing properly isn’t just about “proving” that you are “worthy”. It shows that you have respect for the occasion and for the other people there. Plenty of poor people have a nice outfit that didn’t cost them a whole lot. In fact, that’s where the whole concept of “Sunday best” originated: you kept your one nice outfit for wearing on Sundays and on *really* special occasions, and didn’t wear it at other times, so it stayed nice. This was to show that you *respected* the occasion and the other people.
Many restaurants, even medium-priced family restaurants, have a basic dress code. Don’t you respect God, and your fellow parishioners, enough to dress for church at least as well as you would dress for a halfway-decent restaurant? Most people I know would be embarassed to be seen at Applebee’s dressed the way I’ve seen some people dress for church.
I agree. I attend a very large church with very good people who love Christ and desire to be like him. That being said, there is a “youth” tendency to dress down so as to seem more relaxed about church and, I suppose, less intimidating to newcomers. I understand this, but for me, I dress to show my respect for what I am doing and for my God. You will never find me attending church in jeans and flip-flops (yes, this is the trend). I do not judge others for what they wear, but I was asked by one parishioner (in her 30′s; I’m in my early 40′s) why I dressed nicely for church. I never thought I would see the day when someone would question wearing their “Sunday best” to church. Then again, this must have been the way our parents felt when the younger generation preferred “rock & roll” to Nat King Cole.
No, I’d say it’s more like when your parents nearly had heart attacks when girls started showing a little ankle.
The problem is not that people dress, in your view, “casually” out of disrespect. The problem is that people just don’t dress the same as they used to. Back in *your* day, every man wore a suit to work, and if he didn’t wear a suit to work, he wore a neatly pressed uniform. Casualwear circa 1950 was still slacks, shoes that could be polished, and a sport coat. The t-shirt hadn’t been invented yet.
Today, fewer and fewer people wear suits. And it’s partly because in-person face-to-face meetings with clients and partners is not as common. People can have instant communication via email, conference call, or video conference. There isn’t a need to dress up for meetings, because the format of the meetings has changed. Not only that, expectations about dress have changed.
I think your attitude about one’s “Sunday best” is another example of comforting ritual that really has nothing to do with the essence of church or worship. To obsess over the kids wearing jeans and t-shirts to church is to be the Pharisees criticizing Jesus and the disciples for daring to walk too much or pick food out of the fields instead of preparing it the night before. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
Also, I think you should ask the “youth” at church whether they’re wearing their nicest jeans or not.
I personally don’t even own a suit. I can’t afford one. I’ve never had to wear one for work. I’m also unemployed and living in my parents’ basement, so what do I know.
Actually, the Bible verse mentioned makes the point very well. The fact of the matter is that when people go to a Bible-based church, supposedly to worship God, or even perchance to meet God, they are in agreement that what they seek is potentially, or is, of a higher standard than the rest of society. It is also a natural instinct of a saved person to have an expectation that Christ will return while they are at church – the verse mentioned is very fitting to such anticipation.
For an unsaved person I don’t think the rule necessarily applies, but for anyone saved who reads that verse I cannot imagine how they could justify going into a house of God in flipflops and jeans (unless that is the best they have). Even someone who is invited to a church, or going for the first time would do well to dress like you have some respect for the standard that you are willing to appraise. It may be ritualistic to look your best, and give the best impression for dates, job interviews, etc, but, why pray tell would anyone think that God would expect anything less? Or how could anyone think they are allowed to be that non-chalant with God? You can’t go into a courtroom and stand before a judge wearing crap, so why would anyone think it is okay to dress lousy in front of the one who judges Judges?
It is not about appearances for appearances sake, as the self-righteous hypocritically pious and typically non-church going aspect of society that makes the accusation wants to suggest. It is about being better than you were before, better than the way society does things, and being respectful of the others around you.
A Bible-based church is a special club. It does have a narrative, and it is supposed to put people on a higher standard of living. Setting the church to society’s standards completely misses the point, and is telling, especially in such discussions about the degrading of American society.
Also, this, “Pharisees criticizing Jesus and the disciples for daring to walk too much or pick food out of the fields instead of preparing it the night before” that you wrote is not in the Bible.
Uh, sorry, but “Sunday Best” was never about showing respect or reverence for God. It was about showing off for neighbors and friends. Way back when, most people did not wear suits for work, so Sunday was the only day they could wear them.
Jesus is supposed to be family and friend. You typically don’t put on a 3-piece suit to go to a friend’s house. Suits (at least men’s suits) tend to be hot and uncomfortable, a pain to get in to and out of, and require special cleaning and pressing. It is inefficient to go to such trouble for one hour a week, every week, for someone who does not ask you to do that, and ridiculous to expect or demand that people do so.
Interesting to read your post.
I have always thought that g-d was the same one who was there when you got up and got dressed that morning to go to church or in my case, Jewish service. It is not for the almighty that we dress appropriate to what we are doing, it is for us. Dressing a certain way, such things as wearing a yarmulke on your head, or wearing a tallit in the Jewish tradition, puts you in the right frame of mind. Then you can focus on what you are doing and to whom you are addressing your prayer.
Prayer in Hebrew is avodah which is the same word as work. We show up for work in a certain frame of mind prepared with the appropriate clothing and ready for the task at hand. When we go to church or shul we are going for a specific reason and are ready to do that.
We all know that G-d listens to all of our heartfelt prayers no matter our state of dress or condition. One story I have always liked:
The Shepherd and His
Flute
There is a story told of a young shepherd who on Rosh Hashana came to his synagogue to pray. But he could not pray. For he had not learned to read the words that skipped across the pages of his books and prayers. He sat quietly, listening to words that “climbed in wisps, soaring upwards into the white light to meet the heavens.” The more he listened, the more he wanted to pray. But all he could do was sit silently and listen.
Then he remembered that in his pocket was the little flute he carried, with which he led his flocks. He drew the flute from his pocket, lifted it to his lips, and began to play the simple melody he used to call his sheep.
Of course a shepherd’s flute has to be very loud, and indeed it was. The sound of his melody filled the synagogue with its high, piercing notes. The people around him looked up in surprise! What was this? Who was this young boy, not dressed well, not holding a prayer book, playing his ugly flute in the middle of services on holy Rosh Hashanah?!
Immediately a murmer went through the congregation as all heads turned to stare at the young boy, each face with a look of shock and anger. But the young shepherd did not even notice! His eyes were closed as he played his flute, his heart filled with the feelings of his prayer.
“Rabbi, Rabbi!” one woman said. “Can’t you make this young boy stop! He does not respect the prayers! He is interrupting our service and should leave at once!”
The other angry people murmered in agreement at the woman’s words. All eyes turned to the Rabbi for his response. But the Rabbi too had his eyes closed! What was he doing?
Slowly, the Rabbi opened his eyes and looked out upon the congregation with great love and wisdom. He said, “Do not be angry my friends. This young boy plays his flute as we sing our prayers. It is his prayer, his way of speaking to God on Rosh Hashanah. Listen again, my friends, and maybe you will hear a touch of what he hears.”
And so the people closed their eyes, and their anger quickly melted away. They heard the shepherd play a sweet soft melody for God. As the music filled the room, the people fell quiet before the melody, listening to the prayer of the shepherd and his flute.
…
It’s a fine story, but I don’t think it says anything about what I wrote. If the boy knew how to read he would have. If he had good clothes to wear, he’d wear em. I’m talking about people who think they are being pious by dressing casual when they go to their house of worship, in this case a Bible-based church, and try to justify it without scripture. Trying to point out that others are “simply aghast” doesn’t prove the point. In my conservative view of things I’d assume any serious house of worship would desire the same criteria from it’s congregation.
One doesn’t go to a job interview, a dance, a meeting, a date, or sit with the president dressed like its Saturday afternoon. But apparently, Church is okay to, because God is a Spirit?
To analogize on your story and show why it doesn’t contradict me, if a poor beggar came in to a church in rags and sang with the congregation with a heart full of the Holy Spirit it says nothing about the others who planned to go to church that day, and who should have planned out appropriate attire. If others murmur against him it may suggest something about the spirit of kindness in them, or lack thereof, but it doesn’t indicate that if they dressed up and murmurred at the beggar then everything they do, namely dressing nice, was wrong.
I really don’t know how you can say that any custom of Jewish tradition is not predicated on a foundation that starts with G-d, or exist for only between men (though it may involve that function – never alone). It seems that even the tiniest symbol of your faith, a symbolic flag that you wave, is to indicate that you are of the same source. And regarding the Jews, it is to say, “I am also one of Gods chosen people”. Even wearing a yarmulke, and putting yourself in the right state of mind, is an outward showing that your focus is on G-d.
To clarify Spindok’s story, there is a beautiful Rabbinic interpretation to the effect that if a person who doesn’t know better mixes up the Hebrew so that his prayers come out as blasphemy (not hard, really), God accepts it with love. But the correlary is that someone who does know better, but can’t be bother (or can’t be bothered to learn), God’s reaction witll be quite different.
All good points, but seriously John, Karen Klein? A 68 year old woman that was working out of necessity, after decades of steady work? Those kids were insulting her personally, in vile ways (mocking her dead son). I did not see a woman failing at her job, all I saw was a group of grade school boys that had not been raised with an ounce of integrity. If I had been on that bus and heard those kids, I would be in prison. Some people in society are worth defending.
If you subsidize something do not be surprised when you get more of it.
This also applies to the overflowing cesspool that is TV. When you give money to people who spend their money on garbage do not be surprised when advertisers vie to hawk their wares to garner their share of the garbage sales.
The “victimization ” mentality has, among other things, caused an unfortunate response among those many of us who were once charitable toward the less fortunate and those who were struggling. Let’s assume that I find myself in line at a checkout counter behind some grossly overweight individual who is dressed like a clown and is unloading a shopping cart full of largely junk food to be paid for by some sort of government hand-out. My thoughts no longer turn to distress for their situation but to a reaction of revulsion. I am no longer a caring and sympathetic person. I don’t believe that I would be particularly upset if that same individual were squashed by a truck in the parking lot. One less on the dole. I never thought I would see the day when I would find a large portion of our nation’s population so repulsive that I don’t want to be around them let alone have any compassion for them. I suspect that many others are finding themselves feeling the same way. That’s not good.
Nice article.
Seldom do I agree with an article on PJMedia in its entirety. I shook my head in agreement all the way through this one.
My computer screen seems to have these squiggly red lines on it this morning, and I’ve got a headache from the cheap beer my neighbor insists on serving his guests.
Kathy Shaidle is not only hawt; She just so happens to have a sense of humor, unlike many that read and comment here at PJM.
Comedy on TV has turned into the lamest, most ignorant waste of time anyone can imagine. (As a parent, my first discipline was “no TV” for “punishment”. And now, my kids can see the value in that).
There is rampant, incorrigible, ignorance REIGNING in the United States. It’s no mystery why the creative imaginations of the latest generations is so deficient. And that very quality is being elevated to the highest possible level by the president of the United States and his side kick.
Victimhood has been turned into a cash cow by a government that wants to make people feel guilty and tax anyone without any perceived handicap.
Well, how much is my hangover worth? Guess it depends on the attorney I get, and how deep the pockets the beer company has.
Wow. So many of the comments seem to prove the assertions made in your post.
“The black mold in the walls of American culture”
RACIST !!!!
Which came first; Black mold or racism?
Interesting points…however, I disagree about the lady on the bus, maybe needing a job, or perhaps she stepped forward for some righteous cause:
“Sign the Anti-Bullying Pledge!”
“Volunteer Your Time!”
“Give Your Fair Share!”
“Be a Soldier in the Fight Against Poverty!”
“Teach an Adult How to Read!”
“Be a Teen’s Mentor!”
“Be a Foster Grandparent!”
“Organize in Your Community!”
“Donate!”
Just what do you think would have happened had she tried to discipline any of the young (probably taxpayer fed) barbarians tormenting her? Or ANY bus monitor foolishly trying to control that foul mob?
*Thinking*
Ms. “cheap plastic purse” would have been stomped into a bloody pulp, robbed, (a disappointment there; plastic purse and all) perhaps raped in an *understandable/justified* display of zero tolerance for bigotry of too high of expectations re: suffering, disadvantaged youth.
As Ms. “cheap plastic purse” lay unconcious in an ICU hooked up to life support, relatives (well, maybe not her dead son) could watch her on TV and “learn how to be better citizens in this “downright mean country.” A frowny faced, head-shaking, scolding media anchor would intone:
“The kids say that Ms “cheap plastic purse,” as “typical white person,” “acted stupidly” and used racial slurs!” “The kids say she racially profiled and followed them onto the bus!” “The kids are pumped and will march in the streets, right after they mob and rob a 7-11 for a few snacks, and then they’ll shout: “No Justice, No Peace!” “They call on Rev Al and Jesse Jackson to join them in their struggle against injustice and bigotry!” “The kids demand free phones, free birth control, free abortions, free housing, free clothing, free food, free medical care, free education…hey, wait a minute…they already get all that…
Well, okay then! The kids will NOW march and yell,
“NO MORE TELLING US, ‘NO MORE!’”
All together now: mmm mmm mmm
Be part of the solution. The below link may not appeal to all, but the material is actually very good, and wouldn’t hurt no matter your creed. http://www.traditioninaction.org/tiabk022Civility.htm
Let me be very specific about proper dress for Church. I am fine with casual, even to the point of well cut shorts and flip flops as long as everything is clean and mended. Many jobs don’t require suits these days and not everyone can afford a fancy outfit just for Church. Also I live in a summer vacation area and I’d rather have someone stop for church services on their way to and from a picnic or hike than to skip church altogether. What I have problems with is
Clothes that are so tight you can see the exact shape of what’s been covered.
Blouses that display cleavage.
Halters and other backless tops on women
Tops on men cut to display hairy armpits
Any item of clothing with peek-a-boo holes
Too skimpy of skirts or shorts
And especially tee-shirts with vulgar messages!
If it would be even a little bit risque at a club or on the beach it doesn’t belong in church! And yes, I have seen all of the above in church
Show me someone who claims they can’t afford a nice outfit for church and I will show you someone whose home is filled with expensive gadgets, costly cable/satellite, and branded food items costing twice as much as their generic counterparts. The only people in this country who truly can’t afford it are the homeless, which churches should be assisting as part of their ministry.
I don’t see anything on the list that isn’t equally true of the rest of the western world. This isn’t just n American phenomenon, it’s just as true in Austria and Australia. The entire West is rotting. And Japan along with it.
“Yet we slur Christianity, encourage gay marriage, talk up single motherhood, push deviancy in TV and movies, mock morality, and scoff at codes of honor.”
Which is probably why our greatest days are behind us. When you teeter on the brink of over 50 percent of the population being supported in one way or another by government handouts, and when you have people like Obama and his minions honestly thinking that we are no better than France and that France is the gold standard on what our government should look like, then you’re pretty much finished as a world power.
Is there still time to reverse this trend? Barely, and it’s called Election Day and it takes place on November 6. At least if Romney is elected we can stop the bleeding for a while, just like Ronald Reagan did. But if (God forbid) Obama is re-elected, we’re done, finished, gone. All of the far-left’s ideas regarding gay marriage, socialism, single-family households, open sex, and justifications for just about every excess and deviancy possible, will not only be embraced but encouraged as well. You see, nothing is wrong when the people in charge say it’s right. We WILL be France or, worse, Greece. And, by the way, how are they doing these days? As we can see, not that well. And this is what we’re striving to become?
“Black” mold? Racist!!!!
Official culture is a dead thing. We live in a cultural wasteland of incompetence and narcissism. We are morally, intellectually and spiritually bankrupt. Big Bird is the best we have to offer.
you missed the worst one. The insane notion that everybody deserves to lead the life of a prince, even if they are immoral, psychhopathic, stupid or incompetant.
From that persective, the simple fact that obama somehow became president is the most revolting thing of all
Like snork said, all is true for the entire Western civilization, not just the USA.
I have to disagree on 2 points though. The term ‘slut’ applied to women, but not to men with similar behavior – I’m tired of the double standard. And gays have always existed and I think they should be accepted into the mainstream. I think it’ll be nice if they become suburban bourgeois.
Generally I think the cultural revolution of the last several decades brought upon us a lot of ills, but also some improvements. We should keep the improvements and recover from the rest. The elevation of victimhood is mostly a result of socialist doctrines wherein relative success is explained as a result of exploitation (by you or your ancestors) – if you’re successful you’re automatically suspected of wrongdoing and of being a bad person; if you’re relatively unsuccesful then you obviously didn’t exploit anyone, so being a victim, or being seen as a victim (if you’re unsuccesful you’re automatically seen as a victim of exploitation or some other social wrong), is supposedly evidence of good character. The growth of government and the welfare state with their resulting infantilization are also socialist in origin. The disintegration of social morms goes back to the Age of Reason, and since you’ve mentioned Thomas Sowell, I recommend “Conflict of Visions” for its clarity in explaining liberal and conservative conflicting fundamental beliefs about human nature which lead to opposing views on just about every subject.
I don’t understand why sex has become so central in Western culture. I think the sexual revolution had a liberating aspect that was actually good, but it should have been a footnote, not a central feature of our culture. I guess it was naive to expect that a culture based on reason would actually emphasize reason – things like sciense, technology, philosophy and thinking in general. One would think that people successful in these fields would be the heroes in a culture that aspires to be based on reason, the ones that would be admired and celebrated, the ones kids would want to imitate, but I guess that doesn’t sell as well as sex. Maybe we’re not that rational after all… Maybe sex has such a hold on the human psyche that the minute you loosen the inhibitions it would consume society.
That’s because the male term was whoremonger.
A good piece but it is, wholly, your opinion. I can tell you as a court reporter for my states highest court, who does serious felonies and large civil matters, that the crime rate is lower than it has been to my observation, in my 23 years on the job.
I would also state that much of what you discuss is self selecting magnification. In other words, a group of people who like to hear themselves, the media, make selections of stuff that they think will get them more attention. If one thinks about their adult social interactions, do we really pay any attention to this crap? I mean, is their anyone over 15 years old who basis how they live on Snooky or Paris Hilton? Is their anyone who would really make a sex tape who has to work for a living? I think not.
I also sense, unfortunately, an underlying tone of puritanism which is the Achilles heal of the Conservative movement. Every time I try to talk sense into my fellow voters about a Conservative politician, they are somehow convinced that we are against fun. Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone who has attended parties of Conservatives, Libertarians or Democrats can attest to. I have attended them all in my career as a supporter of various candidates for office and I can attest that Conservatives have more fun. Democrats talk about how kinky and wild they are, but they’re all failures at fun; having gone too far and gone into rehab or afraid of appearing politically correct and independent in their behavior. Libertarians generally are all going in different directions and cannot stay around the party long enough. Conservatives like to drink, make out and argue loudly. Conservatives know that most of what we see in the media is utter and complete nonsense in comparison to what we experience in our busy daily lives.
Thank you, RickNYS: you prove my assertion.
Pray tell: what on earth could “an underlying tone of puritanism” be?
An underling tone of puritanism is the knee jerk reaction to anyone having fun in a way that the viewer cannot understand. This of course leads to the person having fun doing something foolish feeling that they need to do more of it or do it harder to prove that they are different. I guess what I mean is that a true Conservative fails to react to some person who shows up and makes great pretense of their current craze. Let me be specific: The nude beaches in NY are full of firefighters and construction workers and their wives and even single women. No one makes a big deal of it. And if a dirty old man shows up with binoculars, he’s chased away by the other sun worshipers. These beaches on the National Seashore are not full of hippies and OWS people. They’re full of people who in many cases belong to the NRA and drive pickup trucks. At least where I live, Conservatives are really Libertarians. The whole sex is bad, nudity is perverted thing is really not necessary. Reacting to social morays in a political context is self destructive to any movement. What you listen to, dance to, eat or drink or otherwise do with your free time is of no moment compared to the tyranny of unjust taxation and coercive regulation. So I guess what I’m saying is that to me, and to my crowd, Conservative is a stand in for Libertarian.
The guys I see at the pistol range would never vote for a liberal Democrat but only because that group believes in gun control and excessive government regulation. Yet, when I attended a convention of the NYS Conservative Party about 20 years ago, I was surrounded by old fat guys smoking cigars who told me, to my face, that they believed in censorship and that pornography should be banned. That type of coalition cannot survive. A surviving coalition has to be based upon things that voters have in common; a desire to keep the fruits of their labor, to be left alone, to be allowed to make their own mistakes and keep their own faults in operation. Mike Bloomberg is as much of a Puritan as any of the prohibitionists. And he’s considered a liberal. There are many liberal Puritans. The LPs are against self defense, private property and so forth. They are against things that I find fun, and support my well being. They want to interfere in my life. And so I think that Conservatives should stick to economic issues and issues of liberty, and stay the hell away from social issues, such as same sex marriage. It’s a hornets nest and benefits no one politically.
I guess I vomited up a bit of thought there but that’s all I’ve got.
May I add another facet: indifference to, hypercriticism of, and feeling ashamed of, the United States.
You guys, or at leat your forebears, have produced the freest, fairest, most prosperous, most successful and [with the exception of my own country
] the happiest and most harmonoius nation in history. It’s appalling that you have so many navel-gazers who agonise over every perceived failing or blemish – motes and beams writ large. No nation is perfect, including the US, but its citizens have more opportunities to better themselves than almost anywhere else on earth.
Just as Mark Steyn is right when he says that a nation of infants can’t survive, neither can a nation survive when it is paralyzed by a lack of (appropriate) national pride and mawkish, handwringing, self-indulgent national guilt. There is too much of both in America.
All of the 5 “facets” can be attributed to the very success of America. America’s productivity and freedom are the reasons for this success. This is America’s dilemma – How does a healthy society handle too much of a good thing?
Somewhere we took a wrong turn at the Enlightenment, as Alasdair Macintyre posits. http://www.amazon.com/After-Virtue-Study-Moral-Theory/dp/0268035040/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350174798&sr=1-1&keywords=alasdair+macintyre
And quite honestly, capitalism has not been much help.
Sixth Revolting Fact About American Culture – Students, whether in high school or in college, cannot write a proper compound sentence:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/academic-writing-isnt-a-throwback-to-the-1950s/262626/
A commentor asked, ” where does the Constitution give the government the power to regulate drugs.” Here’s the answer, the Congress has the power to legislate. It’s that simple. Congress has the power to legislate, create law, about almost anything. Except for the things that it is prohibited from, such as restricting free speech, a free press, etc.
So called Constitutionalists often think that this document is the end all of our Government. It is not. We are in fact a common law country. Our basis for government is the Constitution but we also have a court system that rules on law. The key difference between common law, our form of government, and say a civil law country, most of Europe, is that our system says only what you cannot do. In a civil law country you cannot do anything unless you are permitted to do it. This is a big difference. We can engage in all kinds of activities unless expressly prohibited. This is why “bath salts” are legal, well they were for a long time, because no one said they weren’t.
Libertarians also like to point to the Constitution and say, show me where it says that. Well in our system, that’s not how it works. If Congress passes a law and its challenged in court and upheld then its legit. That’s what the Constitution says. Congress makes law, Executive branch executes the laws passed, and the Judiciary judges actions for their legality. Law may say, you cannot lie to the government. Well what if you said something that wasn’t true but you didn’t know if at the time? Is that a lie? Well a court decides that.
The point I’m making is this, most people who are self professed Constitutionalists or Originalists have no idea what they are talking about. Most people who proclaim themselves Libretarian are really saying they are fed up with the system and think that the government has no right to do anything. Libertarians are usually only one or two degrees different from anarchists in there speech but a world away from them in action. I am tired of every last one of you.
I would agree with the above if he were add “helped” to “pitied”. This is after all one of the main themes of the Bible. A society that does not help those who (through no fault fo their own) need it is a worthless society, no matter how many great works of art or technological achievements it produces. (I didn’t say the government has to do it.) And, by the say, that is what the prophets say the sin of Sodom was.
But what was the end result of all their pride, arrogance, careless leisure, plenty of food and selfishness? What brought on G-d’s final judgement and an end to their civilization, the “land vomiting them out?” You decide.
Old Testament:
Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Jeremiah 23:14 “In the prophets of Jerusalem also I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies; and they strengthen the hands of evil-doers, so that none (wants to) return from his wickedness: they are all of them become unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.”
New Testament:
Romans 1:24-27 “Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator… For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.”
2Peter 2:6-8 “and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should (choose to) live ungodly; and (G-d) delivered righteous Lot, (who was) sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked, for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds.”
Lascivious does not translate, “inhospitable.” It’s definition: “given to or expressing lust; lecherous, exciting sexual desires; salacious. It does not mean, “inhospitable.”
Jude 1:7 ” Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, (sodomy) are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal (hell) fire.”
Self respect.
What does not emanate from that?
Read John Derbyshire’s
We Are Doomed
I suspect he is an optimist
A Quibble:
Don’t blame the bus monitor for taking a job she was unsuited for.
Blame those that hired her? Not really.
Blame those that put the rules on those that hired her, making it impossible for those doing the hiring to hire the right kind of skills: a club bouncer would have been appropriate, but not permitted. Can’t have the little freaks traumatized by application of discipline.
#24 weo
Have to agree and expand on his comment. He refers to entitlement as another item for the list (which I agree with), and I would also add ignorance/anti-intellectualism as one more.
Whenever I watch Leno’s Jaywalking, I sometimes laugh, but am also aghast at the fact that some of the respondents not only don’t care that they don’t know some elementary fact, but they are proud of it. I realize there are people who just aren’t interested in our ancient heritage or great writings, but its that peculiar brand of pride and complete disinterest in learning that shocks me with many of all ages who could barely absorb any meaningful info during their time on this planet. Thus getting them to think even a bit critically when presented with a serious topic is a monumental task. Then we go to the opposite end of the spectrum to someone like Victor Davis Hanson, who’s just got the wisdom of the ages all wrapped up in his brain (I’m a huge fan of Carnage and Culture). I guess I’m just a bit naively optimistic that maybe there could be an educational revolution where students could study Seneca, Cicero, Plutarch, Thucydides, and more than just excerpts of some of the great liberty texts, but maybe the whole darn thing. When I read the writings of Washington, Madison or Lincoln or Webster, it isn’t just information, it’s a spiritual experience, because the correctness of those glorious principles touch you so deeply. Do many of the rapid-media, pleasure seeking kids today ever get that? That’s their loss, but it would be nice if their was a better organized campaign to spread knowledge of the strength, incredible wisdom and innovation of the Founding Fathers. If that had taken place, there wouldn’t be so many of us ranting on here about the leftist fops that surround us.
Sorry, should be “would be nice if there was a better…”.