Get PJ Media on your Apple

Works and Days

The New Regressives

June 2nd, 2014 - 9:19 pm

Nor would I object if Hillsdale College, Pepperdine University, or any other traditional school chose to invite a Democratic or liberal graduation speaker whose views I oppose. I once attended a Pepperdine graduate school graduation address given by a liberal Los Angeles politician that was little more than an unhinged rant against George W. Bush — and politely clapped through her pathetic rambling.

All that is not today’s liberalism, which instead believes in pursuance of race, class, and gender equality by any means of intimidation and censorship necessary.

If science now allows a premature child to live outside the womb at 20 weeks, that knowledge must remain an irrelevant fact. Champions of abortion who used to insist that fetuses were not viable outside the womb simply have dropped that argument altogether. They are not interested any more in the issue of when life begins, but rather wedded deductively to the notion of terminating a pregnancy at almost anytime the mother might wish to do so. The unexamined career of Dr. Gosnell was not the aberration, but the logical fruition of contemporary liberalism’s unquestioned embrace of abortion.

I don’t have the expertise to know exactly to what degree, if any, man-caused carbon releases since the Industrial Revolution have heated up the planet, or whether the supposed heating is deleterious to the human condition, or whether the deleteriousness can be addressed by global statutes that are equitably enforced around the world without causing greater impoverishment and suffering.

But I do know something about philology and the historical circumstances behind both euphemism and the constant shifting of vocabulary. Thus why did “global warming” begat “climate change” that sometimes begat “climate chaos”?

And why, at this time of history’s greatest carbon releases, has the planet not warmed in the last 17 years? Why was data massaged to create the so-called “hockey stick” paradigm? Why sue satirist Mark Steyn for an inconvenient truth, or denigrate opponents as “deniers” as if they were some sort of Holocaust deniers, if the data is unimpeachable and speaks for itself?

Add in the Climategate email scandals and the green hucksterism of an Al Gore or the crony capitalism that leads to a Solyndra scandal, and there are liberal grounds for skepticism and ongoing debate. As for settled science, I once was told as teenager to take Vitamin C but avoid D, and now to take D but avoid C, in the manner that the PSA test was once the touchstone to diagnosing prostate cancer and now not so much, and then again in the future perhaps again essential to an early diagnosis. What most directly leads to heart disease — fatty foods, too much meat, too many carbohydrates, inflammation, or high cholesterol? Do we know yet the precise factors responsible for coronary disease when collating weight, genetics, exercise, and food intake? We know that the sedentary obese are at higher risk, but does science yet tell us why the thin with low cholesterol sometimes drop dead at 60?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
They are neo-feudalists.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
For the life of me, I do not understand why people keep using the word "liberal" to describe radical Leftists and revanchist racists.

Why are all these pinky-extended conservatives still insisting on permitting the modern Jacobins to set the ground rules and the terms by which they will be described?

If you let people describe themselves as "progressive" and "liberal," well---progress is good, isn't it? "Liberal" means "generous," doesn't it? What could be bad? Why the hell are conservatives falling into this trap even on their own websites? Call the bastards what they are: Radicals. Revanchists. Racists. Socialists. They are not liberal. They are not for progress, but regress. They are anti-science; they are pro-stasis.

Tell it like it is, man.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I like trigger warnings.

I think any trigger with a pull under 3 lbs should carry a warning.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (113)
All Comments   (113)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Given all that Professor Hanson has written about Krazifornia I just don't understand why he doesn't bail out of there while he still can. There is going to be a point where so many tax payers have left Krazifornia that the state will impose a fine or tax or a regulation making it impossible for a TAXPAYING CITIZEN OF THE STATE to leave. Get out while you can Professor.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
I had issues with calling Leftists reactionaries, but since they are essentially neo-feudalists(*), I suppose it is accurate.

(*) We will live in our huge, well-heated mansions, and you will freeze in the dark - or accept charity.
We will have armed guards to protect ourselves, but you must take your chances.
We will run our corporations by the rules we have had government pass, and you will never be able to create any competition.
We will have our health care, and you will take what the government decrees. Oh, and you have to take charity.

Perhaps a better description would be a term from deductive reasoning? I am referring to "evil".
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Nor do I think MSNBC must dump Al Sharpton for his past homophobic, anti-Semitic, and racist rants that have on occasion contributed to fatal violence."

I appreciate your accurate summary of the facts, but the question is why the only Black host MSNBC could find was a man who is basically a Nazi? What does that say of their view of Black people?

And what of a President of the United States who speaks before the Nazi's organization - as does his attorney general, the man responsible for preventing such murders?

I believe all Democrats now have the burden of proof to demonstrate that they are not Nazis.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
By whatever name it goes, the left will always be our enemy.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Trigger warning? Now we are not using caveat lector anymore?
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Has anybody noticed that liberals are not very liberal anymore, at least in the old sense, of supporting civil liberties, due process, free speech, and honest gov. Maybe all the time it was just a false leftie pose, to be used until they got enough power over others that they didnit need it anymore. The only real liberals left are libetarians and some tea partiers.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with the first part, but libertarians and Randians tend to be anything but liberal, because they believe they have determined through reason what government should or should not do - and thus are very intolerant of other points of view. Personally, I think they have mixed up reason with consistency. Conservatives these days tend to be more liberal than Leftists, which admittedly is not a high standard.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sir, You forgot evolutionism as the most "self-serving deductive doctrine" of all: There is no Creator; therefore, evolutionism must be true.
I highly recommend the book "Outing the Moronocracy: Ending the Rule of the Blind, the Stupid, and the disgraceful in American Society."
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Or the persistence of the steady-state theory.

We have circular reasoning, generally. First we define science as not including God, then we use the results thereof to prove he isn't there (or involved, same difference).
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Even "warmist" David McKay admits it won't work. See SUSTAINABLE ENERGY: WITHOUT THE HOT AIR. Freebie @ http://www.withouthotair.com/
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you as always Dr Hanson. Painful as always but these days the truth is mind boggling. Many of us think we're at a mental precipice...approaching insanity.
Liberal, gay, progressive etc etc....even the lexicon has been hijacked. But you never fail to find the right lexicon to hit back --hard-- with. Carry on Dr Hanson. Maybe some of the sheeple will have a light bulb moment.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
No light bulbs allowed!
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
The concept of a flat Earth came from a fiction book, not by people's beliefs. The Bible and ancient Greek science both said it was a sphere.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't believe this is true in the case of the Bible; the model used there is basically a plane with a dome over it. This does not mean that the Bible is not true; it is just a model used by what is essentially a law book, and if the Bible had described the universe as it is, no-one would have believed it. For that matter, neither would we, since science is continually evolving.

On the other hand, the Bible flatly contradicted the what was perhaps the longest-held theory of enlightened people, the steady-state theory. It took perhaps the entire first half of the twentieth century for them to finally accept - kicking and screaming - that the Bible was correct. I believe the theory has come back, but it can no longer be stated that creation is anti-science.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
As the Rabbis said, "the Torah speaks in the language of man", that is, in the vernacular, even when it isn't 100% accurate.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All

29 Trackbacks to “The New Regressives”