Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Flag Follies

Recently, air force veteran Michelle Manhart created headlines by interfering with a group of Valdosta State University Students from desecrating the American flag. She eventually found herself under arrest. The usual omnipresent cell phone video of the encounter below:




Manhart's own treatment of the flag in a Playboy pictorial is just a little suspect. She probably did not intend to cast disrespect for the flag or the republic it symbolizes. Is she suggesting that this (i.e., American womanhood) is what our forces overseas are defending? Who knows. She does violate flag etiquette. She apparently received a reprimand and a demotion from the air force for the stunt.







Meanwhile, the group protesting the flag refused to press charges. Neither did it even identify itself. Now we know why. The group is a black supremacist organization touting the falsehoods of African origins of civilization, black Jesus, and collective white guilt. A social media upload:





And you can find the group's leader, Eric Sheppard demonstrating how much he hasn't learned in college here.

And now, after complaints from students that someone (Sheppard?) had been threatening to shoot people, campus police found a book bag containing a firearm. They claim to have indisputable evidence that links the handgun to Sheppard. A judge issued a warrant for Sheppard's arrest.


VSU issued a campus alert, implicitly  admitting that Sheppard is the problem--not Manhart.


H/T The Conservative Treehouse











Sunday, April 5, 2015

He is Risen . . . Or has He?

The Christian scriptures record an oral tradition, some 40 years in the making, that Jesus of Nazareth died from crucifixion but rose from the dead. The four accounts differ in so many details, one wonders what really happened, or even if it happened at all.

To wit:

1. Jesus died.


And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last ( Mark 15:37)


2. Because the Sabbath approached, they found a cave nearby so that they could entomb Jesus quickly--even without proper preparation of the body.


When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.  Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb (Matthew 27:57-60)



A couple of female disciples followed to learn the location of the tomb so they could return after the Sabbath to properly prepare the body for burial.


Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb (Matthew 27:61)


OR


Joseph and Nicodemus already prepared the body for a proper burial, eliminating the need for the female disciples to return to the tomb.


After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. (John 19:38-41).



3. After the Sabbath passed, two women arrive after sun had risen to anoint the body for burial.



When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. ( Mark 16:1-2)


OR


Before the sun rose, Mary came alone to the tomb. Because Nicodemus already prepared the body for burial, Mary brought no spices but only came to grieve.



Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. (John 20:1)



4. Two women--Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrive to witness an earthquake, the stoned rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, and one angel sitting upon the stone. Although the tomb guards fainted with fear, the two women approached the scene.


And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. (Matt. 28:1-4).


OR


Three women--Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome arrive to find the stone rolled back and no angel upon it. They entered the tomb to discover one angel and were alarmed.


And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back— it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. (Mark 16:3-5).


OR


The women find the stone rolled back and no angel on it. They enter the tomb to discover two angels inside the tomb and became frightened.


And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground. (Luke 24:2-5).



OR


Mary Magdalene came alone to discover the stone rolled away, saw no angels, and ran . . .


Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran . . . ( John 20:1-2)



5. The one angel sitting on the stone tells the women that Jesus has risen. He directs the women to tell the other disciples the good news of the resurrection and that they should go to Galilee to meet Jesus. As they leave, they run into Jesus, who greet them repeats the instructions given by the angels.


But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you." So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me." (Matthew 28:5-10)


OR


One of two angels inside the tomb tells the women that Jesus has risen. He gives no instructions about meeting Jesus in Galilee. Neither do they run into Jesus as they run from the scene to tell the disciples the good news.


And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?  He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise." And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. ( Luke 24:5-9)



OR



After Mary Magdalene, who initially saw no angels, told the disciples about the empty tomb, the disciples came and witnessed it for themselves. They returned home. Mary, still weeping by the tomb, then enters the tomb to see two angels. Then she turns to see the risen Jesus.


But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni." (John 20:11-16).


OR


The only angel inside the tomb tells them Jesus has risen and that Jesus will meet his disciples in Galilee. Because of their fear, however, the women told no one.


And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:6-8).


He has risen!

OR

Has he ?

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Conservatives and Culture

Often times Americans find themselves divided politically over questions that involve ethnicity, religion, language--in short--culture. Unfortunately, sometimes these disagreements provoke acrimony and mutual accusations of racism.

These specific occasions reflect attitudes about the broader ideas of multiculturalism and diversity.

Multiculturalism in one sense is simply the recognition of the cultural diversity that exists in nearly any given group of people. This common sense observation transcends  political ideology.

Multiculturalism in another sense is the celebration of diversity, often accompanied by efforts to increase that diversity. This is where conservatives and liberals part ways.

The United States always has been a diverse nation. Even though the vast majority of settlers and immigrants came from Great Britain, significant and enduring differences marked those first generations of Americans. These differences included speech patterns, housing, food, marital and child rearing practices, and nuanced differences about the concept of liberty.  You can read about it here. They did share, however, a broader culture unity rooted in language, religion, law, and national identity.

Over the decades, the United States has grown even more diverse. Millions of immigrants speaking different languages, worshiping different gods, and carrying cultural baggage very different from Great Britain and Europe have come to American for freedom and opportunity. Over several generations most of these immigrants have assimilated to varying degrees--most adopting English as their primary language and conforming to general American cultural norms--even while retaining important elements of their own important cultural practices. This state of affairs is captured by the by the historical metaphor of America as a "Melting Pot."

Our immigration policies helped preserve this state of affairs. Policies based quotas and caps for immigration on existing percentages of the population. In effect, this gave preference to immigrants who largely shared European cultural norms. This helps maintain something of a cultural continuity even in the face of technological change.

Most Americans in general, and Conservatives in particular, have embraced this vision of society as a unity that also preserves diversity.  It conserves the core of American cultural norms; at the same time it defers to  immigrants the freedom to maintain some of their own traditional cultural norms. Conserving our cultural norms is desirable because, first, they are ours, and second, they best maintain the conditions for human thriving. Conservatives recognize that some cultural practices are superior others.

Liberals have challenged this traditional approach to diversity. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 fundamentally changed our policies. The United States opened its doors to much larger numbers of immigrants from third world countries. Like most earlier immigrants, they, too, have come for freedom and economic opportunity. Unlike most earlier immigrants, however, their cultural norms differ in fundamental ways. Assimilation becomes more difficult. The incentive to assimilate grows weaker, too, when a continual stream of immigration reinforces the cultural practices of the native country. This is especially true of immigration from Central and South America. Moreover, the emergence of Telemundo and Univision as sources of entertainment and news for America's Hispanic population additionally acts as a disincentive for assimilation.

Sometimes assimilation is actually discouraged. Modern liberals have abandoned the earlier consensus on diversity by celebrating cultural diversity and encouraging its persistence. Liberals condemn even the most benign efforts to encourage greater assimilation--for example, English usage for communication--as racist. Some liberals seem to celebrate every culture but their own.

Finally, many liberals even abandon the pretense of immigration laws altogether. They welcome and encourage illegal immigration. When borders and laws do not matter, it is outsiders who determine our immigration policy--not us.

As Conservatives suspect, the results of such policies are not encouraging. Harvard political science professor Robert Putnam published a lengthy study of the relationship between diversity and social trust. Diversity not only erodes trust between ethic groups, it also erodes trust of a community's traditional social institutions.

The money quote:

"The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us."

—Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam



Friday, March 20, 2015

Conservatives and the Common Good of Capital and Labor

Conservatives also see economic activity as a largely cooperative enterprise.

Of course businesses compete with each other. Some see more success than others. And some disintegrate as the result of competition. And they also cooperate with each other to shared needs in some economic process. This phenomenon has been called "spontaneous order." (For the classic illustration see "I, Pencil--My Family Tree."

Every business, however, essentially operates as a self contained cooperative enterprise. The success and financial well-being of every individual depends upon the success and financial well-being of the whole enterprise. It is in the interest of every individual that the business succeeds. This starts at the moment of hiring, when a business negotiates with a prospective employee over wages, hours, and job class. It continues during each employee's career with the company through training, promotions, and financial reward. It can end, however, when employee no longer supports the enterprise and leave it for another opportunity. (Or when the company perceives that an individual no longer contributes to the success of the company and terminates the employee's status with the company. ) Success is “the common good,” if you will, of the business.

The directors of businesses obviously try to cultivate a sense of the common good among everyone involved. That is why they rarely describe anyone as “employees.” These days directors of even the largest corporations refer to employees as associates, teams, or even as family. It is perhaps ironic that this development emerged after relations in the workplace of larger corporations became more impersonal than ever before. Most people today work for entities in which ownership has long been separated from management and policies are established in a company headquarters hundreds of miles distant from a particular business location. Even the nature of ownership itself has changed. Most people today work for companies owned by millions of shareholders.

Conservatives generally share this view of every business enterprise and its common good. While tensions and disagreements emerge everyday in the work place between “labor” and “management,” conservatives see these disagreements subsumed by the shared common goals of the company as a whole. Perhaps they emphasize “the common good” to a fault.

This is why they generally are lukewarm about unions. They exacerbate conflicting interests in a company by institutionalizing them.

And this is why they never seek to inflame. tensions in the workplace for political advantage.

For Progressives, however, the conflicting interests between “labor” and “management” present an opportunity to exploit the difference for political purposes. Labor disputes become opportunities to promulgate the idea of a war on labor or a war on workers--waged, of course, by conservatives and Republicans.

Below, an adaptation of the original essay.


 

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Conservatives and the Common Good of Women and Men

Progressives, then, see society consisting of autonomous rights-bearing individuals which they group together under various rubrics of “common interest” such as gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and a host of others. Progressives believe—or at least say they believe—that such groups or “communities” live under siege by those who would take way their rights. Progressives pit every “community” against every other “community.” This way of thinking almost dispenses with “society” at all.

In contrast, most conservatives tend to overlook differences among individual Americans. Conservatives recognize that difference exist; they just believe that they was dwarfed in importance by the common interests that all individual or groups share.

We will take a look at several examples in separate short posts.

The recent example that stands out most is the supposed “war on women.” Progressives charge that conservatives not only oppose access to abortions, but also oppose access to birth control. “Opposing access” in this instance means refusing to require insurance companies or even tax payers to subsidize birth control. Sometimes Progressives spin the opposition as based upon religion. Other times they attribute it to sexism. Why any institution dominated by men—whether an insurance company, Congress, or the Supreme Court determine any individual woman's choices regarding birth control.

First, birth control and abortion are hardly issues that divide on the grounds of sex. Men find modern methods of birth control, including abortion, as almost as liberating for them as for women. No more unwanted pregnancies. No more financial support for an unplanned child. No more “shotgun weddings.”

Second, the progressive focus on birth control and abortion serves to narrow and minimize women. The horizons of most women extend beyond the narrow confines of reproduction services. Family budgets, national budgets, education policy, war and peace—all concern women as well as men.

Finally, this whole narrative ignores the greater common interest that men and women share. Men and women work together both as teams in the workplace and as partners in marriage. And there is nothing like the institution of marriage to demonstrate the shared common interest between men and women.

This perhaps explains why liberals attract more voter loyalty among single women while conservatives attract more electoral support from married women. Single women perhaps are less apt to recognize the interests that men and women share. Married women, engaged in the cooperative enterprise of marriage and family formation, seem less susceptible to rhetoric about the “war on women.”




Thursday, March 12, 2015

A Cancer Returns

Like a cancer that will not go into remission, the Clintons keep coming back.

As a malady debilitating the  body politic, this particular disease is a strain of the oral variety--they just cannot stop lying and obfuscating.









After delaying for several days to get her talking points in order, Hillary! Clinton finally answered--and dodged--questions about her use of a private email account on a private server for government business.

During the press conference, she claimed that she "opted for convenience" by using one device for both personal and government business. The "inconvenient truth," however, is that two weeks earlier at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, she admitted to being a hoarder of sorts with electronic devices. According to Hillary!, she uses an iPad, iPhone, a mini-iPad, and a Blackberry.

If you can endure her phony cackling, you can watch the exchange here.


Hillary! explained that she and her staff went through 60,000 emails. About 30,000 consisted of personal emails, including those of her husband and another 30,000 government emails. The personal emails were deleted and the government emails were  turned over to the government.

A spokesman for Bill Clinton, however, says that the former president has sent only two emails in his life. Story here.

And although the personal emails allegedly have been deleted, she insisted that the server on which the emails were stored will remain private and off limits to any independent investigator.

 Hillary! assured the members of the press that the server is safely guarded by secret service agents. Of course, it is not through "breaking and entering" that  electronic data is stolen; it is through hacking.

 Hillary! asks that American trust her that she kept her personal and government email accounts separate--trust  her that she sent government business only to government based websites--trust her that she never sent classified documents by email at all.

Maybe there is nothing to this.

After Whitewater, Cattlegate, the so-called bimbo eruptions, and the preposterous claim that they were broke when they left the White House, however, it is difficult to believe anything they say anymore.

Theodore White once described Richard Nixon as a man who had told so many lies that eventually he found it easier to lie than to tell the truth--even when it did not matter.

It seems an apt description of that metastasizing malignancy from Little Rock--the Clintons.






















Monday, March 2, 2015

Divided We Stand

Aristotle notes that “a state is a plurality, which must depend upon education to bring about its common unity.”

Although most conservatives see a natural unity in society, especially at the smaller segments of family and neighborhood, they acknowledge the plurality of individuals and their desires and interests. Conservatives believe, however, that the government, and its institutions such as schools and universities, should encourage unity among the citizens.

As seen in the last post, however, even in Aristotle's time demagogues attempted to stir up the poor against the rich. A cursory look at the headlines during the Obama administration shows how little has changed.

Class divisions are not the only ones, however, exploited by progressives in politics and the media.

In the progressive mind, most differences about public policy are cast in terms of capital vs. labor, men vs. women, natives vs. foreigners, and straights vs. LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Flexual, Asexual, Genderfuck, Polyamourous, Bondage/Disciple, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism).


There is always some kind of war going on against women, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, unions, etc.


How much they really believe this and how much of it is simply political rhetoric is anyone's guess. Perhaps progressives themselves do not even know.