Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Why Washington Matters Today: Washington the Leader/President

Posted: February 20, 2013 by datechguy in culture
Tags: ,

The 3rd of a four-part series of why George Washington Matters, Monday, Washington the Revolutionary, yesterday Washington the General, today Washington the Leader/President

It has become fashionable for some historians to play down George Washington as president and raise more recent people above him.  Abe Lincoln due to his victory in the Civil War gets high marks, FDR’s win in WW 2 and Reagan’s in the Cold War both make them loom large particularly since both Reagan & FDR are still in living Memory and George Washington is from an age so remote to many his presidency becomes ancient history .  You were dealing with a smaller country, less communication,

But to really appreciate Washington the president and the leader you have to look at three specific things.

First Washington at the end of his military career.

Up to the time of Washington and afterwards as well history abounded with examples of leaders of armies who used those armies to take absolute power.  At the end of the War Washington was the single most popular person in America.  As a man with just about everything the only thing he didn’t have was a crown or a title.

It was in his grasp, all he had to do is reach out to have it and he would be the head of an American constitutional monarchy.

And he declined.

It was a move worthy of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and a shock to the powerbrokers of Europe.

But as much as it impressed the men of Europe it impressed his countrymen more he presided at the constitutional convention having very little confidence in the resulting system but accepted the presidency when elected unanimously.

This was the 2nd phase.  Despite the lack of confidence in the system he governed with discretion and skill  knowing every action that he would take would be the model for the country to follow and acting in a manner that aided rather than retarded a system that he thought would fail measuring carefully words and deeds for the sake of future generations .

The third phase was the end of his term.  It’s one thing to refuse imperial power when you’ve never had authority, but Washington now had two full terms under him.  He could keep power with the veneer of republicanism  he might have justified serving a 3rd term simply to delay the decent into parties and partisan divisions that already existed.

He did not and when he gave his farewell address assigned the credit for all of his success to the people:

In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; than, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it.

In this Washington didn’t just equal Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus who twice gave up power over Rome, he exceeded him by not only giving up power but crediting his success to the people.

It would be 144 years before a president was arrogant enough to consider himself in indispensable.  In closing think of the leaders and the pols of today.  If any of them had the chance for permanent power do you imagine any of them would surrender it?

The nation has seen greatness in the White House, but it has not seen the greatness of a Washington.

Tomorrow Washington the Emancipator

Why George Washington Matters Today: Washington the Revolutionary

Posted: February 18, 2013 by datechguy in culture
Tags:

As history continues to be revised in the classrooms of the country one of the greatest stars the country has ever produced George Washington continues to get short shift.

Washington is a paradox a rich man who risks his wealth in revolution, a general who loses far more than he wins, a man universally popular yet not only doesn’t become king but gives up power after elected. The slaveholder who frees his slaves in his will.

These are all incredible things at any time in history. This weeks for February Vacation and Washington’s birthday week, we’ll talk about the reasons why this holiday should still be called “Washington’s birthday (as its legal name remains) instead of president’s day.

First: Washington the Revolutionary

George Washington was one of the richest if not the richest person in the colonies yet he was willing to fight and support a revolution that would add little if anything to his wealth.

Think about it. What did Washington have to gain from a successful revolt? He was already a huge landowner, he already had comfort, power and wealth, reputation, everything a man of his time could want. What is the incentive for him to do anything that might change it?

Consider: If he had sided with England others would have followed and if a British victory had taken place, a likely-hood that the nearly the entire world anticipated at the time, he would have been honored even further, Knighthood, Order of the Bath, a peerage. These were the greatest honors an Englishman could get at the time, one of the few things Washington lacked.

Yet he put principle ahead of this, and fought against England. Think of the risk involved. If England wins, Washington would not only face a “short drop and a sudden stop”. Even if he was somehow allowed to live, his property would certainly be seized and distributed to loyalists, and his name would have lived infamy. A 18th century Guy Fawkes.

Washington in terms of wealth had more to lose than almost anyone in the nation, and he still fought, risking life, wealth and reputation for the dream of an independent America.

Who can you think of in modern America who would do the same?

When George Washington is called the Father of his Country, you had better believe he earned it.

(Tomorrow, Washington the General)

The Common Thread of the Left: The Ultimate Target

Posted: January 27, 2013 by datechguy in catholic, culture
Tags: ,

You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.

Leviticus 18:15

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said,

“Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.“

John 8:11-12

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Father Damien Karras: I think it might be helpful if I gave you some background on the different personalities Regan has manifested. So far, I’d say there seem to be three. She’s convinced…

Father Merrin: There is only one.

The Exorcist 1973

For quite a bit I’ve been writing about a common thread that we see on the left

I wrote about the media’s big lie concerning Hurricane Sandy

If George Bush was in office Ginny White would be on every TV network but this is the time of the Big Lie.

The Big Lie, it’s all about not telling the truth or “speaking truth to power” but about pushing a meme and if some people are without blankets that’s just the way it is.

Susan Rice and Benghazi:

Note that the death of four Americans is not the issue, the administration sending out a person before the election to deceive is not the issue, no it is the idea that two of the three Senators who have critiqued said person are white men (we’ll ignore female Senator in the group) and she is a black woman and because she is a black woman the standards of truth and honesty do not apply here.

Israel & Hamas:

So in public Israel needs to show restraint, in private Hamas and their rocket firing friends are “some hooligans” than normal people would just go kill?

I object to the use of the term “Hooligans” it’s not like they are a bunch of bikers dragging their murdered people behind them as they ride…oh wait:

Islam:

Note that, not what is true, not what is right, what can be said. What can’t be said is any critique of Islam, no matter how true.

Amnesty International:

Managing that change has led to problems – an indication of which emerged in 2009, when Amnesty handed over about 800,000 pounds ($1.2 million) to two former executives as part of a confidential payout upon departure.

Normally one must speak truth to and about power, but if the group is a mainstay of the left apparently Silence is golden, particularly if it means suppressing truth about an iconic left money machine.

Sen Kelly Ayotte again:

this is the left, if the truth and the reality is not favorable we shall simply ignore it, deny it or pretend it was never there.

On the bright side they can still play the race card if they include her.

Update: Jennifer Rubin appreciates Ayotte, but she is not the left. (Boy you can tell this is an old post can’t you DTG 12/13/2023)

Abortion:

Elizabeth Elizabeth Elizabeth you are so close, being kind-hearted you conclude that Ms Williams is taking herself on a monstrous route unknowingly, but observe her argument carefully. This is a place she has been forever, in fact an honest reading of her piece admits the pro-abortion side has been there all along. The only reason she is making this statement in public is she believes it will advance her cause.

And the sanctity of life:

How many years do you think it will take before “So What” extends to other people who the left concludes are less important and less worthy of life?

How long before it becomes a matter of faith that those who would stand up and object or obstruct such obvious truths that are held by the more enlightened must be suppressed? Of course you’d have to disarm them first.

All these things have a common thread, a pattern and it’s consistent:

  1. Truth is not valued unless it serves a particular ideology.
  2. The reality of people’s state is subordinate to the perception of their actual condition.
  3. Critique can be made based on optics rather than fact.
  4. Behaviors that are considered beyond the pale by their own standards are tolerated from specific groups or people.
  5. Public standards only exist until they are no longer useful or needed in the fight.

Looking that this list, one might say, it’s a fight the laws of human nature, yet that is not entirely true, after all, if a person of the right has, say an affair, the left applies said rules to destroy them, as opposed to a Bill Clinton who is still celebrated.

Or one could say it’s a battle for “modern feminism” the right for women to advance, yet a Sarah Palin,  Michelle Bachmann, Nikki Haley or a Michelle Malkin can be publicly attacked in ways 1000 times beyond Sandra Fluke was,  and the attackers are embraced and celebrated.

You might argue that its conservative values that prompt the attack, which is why a Kelly Ayotte can be ignored, yet Islam is far more conservative and it is defended.

You could say openness and justice are the goal, but such openness doesn’t extend to their own.

You can plead equality for gays, yet the murder or beating of gays in Islamic controlled lands is not an issue while Israel’s allowing of gay culture to exist is “pink washing”

In short there appears to be a double standard being employed here, people complain of it often, but that appearance is deceiving.  There is a single standard being applied, a common thread, a singular target that must be destroyed:

That target, Judeo-Christian values, or put simply Christianity.

Christianity is everything the left despises:

  • It teaches the unity of men, when the power of the left comes from dividing by race or color or creed.
  • It acknowledges God as the source of our freedom and free will, rather than the state or another giving such freedom
  • It restrains appetites rather than letting one do what they want when they want to by simple rules,
    • greed (thou shalt not covet)
    • lust ( thou shalt not commit adultery)
    • spin (though shalt not bear false witness)
  • It forgives and accepts anyone, on the condition that said person acknowledges and repents of their sins or at the very least commits to fight the temptation to them.
  • It gives the absolute freedom to walk away from it, while giving you until the very last second of your life to re-consider before actual judgement is passed.

And worst of all:

  • To those who embrace it the strongest it gives courage, the courage to stand against any slander, any pressure and even die for the sake of Christ rather than sin.

Now some might look at this and scoff, there are Christians without number who violate these rules.  Well YEAH of course they do, it’s sin, man is susceptible to sin and temptation yet Christianity accepts them and dares to forgive them if only they change.  Even the Pope has a confessor.

One might give numerous examples of preachers and priests who have used Christianity as a cloak for their own sins, YEAH of course but there are corrupt police, corrupt courts, corrupt politicians and dishonest accountants, that doesn’t mean we should abolish Police, Courts, Government and Math. (Boy this post is old DTG 12-13-23

One can point to the sins of a government that professes Christianity but even then Christianity is a walk toward perfection, such perfection can’t be achieved on earth, the left constantly holds Christianity to a utopian standard that they promise but never deliver knowing that very few if any individual Christians reach that standard.

I can hear the arguments now:  There are all kinds of Christians that the left celebrates, yes They are, from breakaway Catholics to Protestants that abandon the written faith the left is always ready to celebrate any Christian that is willing to walk away from the plain language of scripture and tradition.  And since anyone and pretty much make their own protestant church by a vote of a group of people however small, there is no problem finding the willing, particularly when fame and acceptance from the right people is offered as a carrot.

Now I can hear those crying:  DaTechGuy you’re full of it!  It’s just a load of right wing nonsense you’re just upset because we are opposed to that wildly repressive organization known as the Roman Catholic Church that you follow.

That arrangement might hold weight if you didn’t consider the left and Islam.

Islam in general and radical Islam in particular is everything those who attack  Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular despise:

The left says Christianity is misogynistic pointing to Paul words about subordination in verses 22-24 of Ephesians (while conveniently ignoring the radical for the time elevation of women in verses 21, 25-33) yet ignore the open misogyny when practiced without violence (divorce by simple proclamation of a man, subordination in practice, polygamy ), or with violence (honor killing, justified rape or slavery of non-believers)

They condemn Christianity as against homosexual acts  (as indeed it is, just as Christianity is against any other sin) yet the actual murder of Gays in Islamic lands or beating of Gays even in Western countries in Muslim enclaves are not newsworthy to them.

They abhor Christianity complaints about the free expression of things we find aberrant or insulting to Christ (as is our right) in public or private display to  and roundly condemn us a “puritanical” in defense of free speech.

Yet Molly Norris is still in hiding for a cartoon, South Park’s Muhammad episodes are still censored, Christians marching in Dearborn can be physically stoned and a filmmaker is still in prison over a (really lousy) film hitting Islam.

The question then is asked?  Why isn’t Islam even critiqued when Christianity is targeted?  The answer is simple.  Christianity IS the target thus the behaviors of Islam are acceptable because it is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

But what about they Jews you might ask?  Jews are no more Christians than Hindus are.  That’s true, but Judaism is the building block that Christianity is built upon.  We worship the same God, revere the same prophets and do our best to obey the same 10 commandments.  One can describe the difference between Judaism and Christianity in one simple expression:

Jews and Christians are running the same race, but Jews think Christians have jumped the gun, Christians think Jews didn’t hear it go off.

—————————————————————-

Now like any generality there are exceptions.   Pat Correll and the late Chris Hitchens come instantly to mind.  They have no use for Christianity but also have no use for Islam and at no little risk to themselves loudly fought its Fascism.  Likewise my friend Cynthia Yockey might take an exception to my arguments on the truth of Christianity but she is an implacable foe of Radical Islam and has abandoned the fiscal liberalism for the sake of her freedom.

It is no coincidence that all three of these people were rejected by the left for their apostasy although in fairness the left hasn’t yet reached the point where, like Islam such apostasy is punishable by death.

—————————————————————

I ask you to look at the last 40 years.  Look at where the culture and the media has gone and ask your self, why?  Ask why children three generations removed from the cultural influences of Christianity find themselves killing themselves and others in numbers not seen before?  Ask why schools, particularly those controlled in places the left is strongest are places not of safety or education but of danger and mediocrity.  Ask why you have the most medicated culture in history, the most litigious culture in history and a generation that has physical and material advantages that their grandparents and great grandparents could only dream of, can’t cope with life and despair of their future.

None of this is a bug, it’s all a feature.  Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren?

I’m quite sure that this argument will produce scoffs, insults, pejorative labels and maybe even some counter arguments.  That’s fine, the nonsense I can deal with and as for the arguments,  if my thesis is any good it will hold up under critique.

But whatever you say, however you phase it, if you look at the left and the path they have led our culture I submit and suggest there is one way to understand it:

The common thread of the left is the destruction of Judeo Christian culture, standards belief and If you start from that position it all makes perfect sense.

Update: restored via the wayback machine with

  1. Minor formatting updates
  2. spelling corrections

Go to the head of the Class 

Posted: December 28, 2012 by datechguy in culture

The Doctor must be behind it! I sense the vicious doctrine of egalitarianism, Hade!

Doctor Who, The Sun Makers 1977

In my last post on the seeming willingness of Democrats to condone behavior against their foes that they would condemn if experienced by their friends I noted how familiar the arguments of those on the Democrat left sounded to the points their party forefathers of the nineteenth century made when explaining why a particular group of people were unworthy of the protections of law and culture.

While some on the left may not believe it right to comparing the arguments and attitudes of an Alexander Stephens in his famous crossroads speech or the majority opinion in Scott vs Sandford to their own, the objection fails due to their quite understandable mistake of seeing these arguments purely in terms of race rather than in terms of the real game here: social structure.

One of the distinct differences that social structure or caste brings is status. How one reacts to different behaviors and what actions can be permitted is based upon where you exist in the structure.

Here are three current examples of this:

————–

The people we cover, we move in their world, but it is their world. You can’t live like them. You’ll never keep up.

The Paper 1994

Last Sunday David Gregory, while hosting NBC’s Meet the Press was interviewing Wayne LaPierre of the NRA held up a 12 shot magazine clip during a confrontational moment of the interview.

Meet the Press is shot in DC and these items are strictly banned with a stiff penalty for possession. NBC made it a point to ask permission of the DC police to bring in the studio, and the DC police refused yet Meet the Press and David Gregory felt unrestrained by this refusal.

As Stacy McCain put it:

in full knowledge that possession of a 30-round magazine is illegal in D.C. — where Meet the Press is recorded — David Gregory and NBC willfully violated the law just so Gregory could dramatize his anti-Second Amendment lecture to the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.

NBC acknowledged directly the validity of the law by their request to the DC police, their ex-post-facto to provide ATF cover for their actions implicitly acknowledges the legal violation.

Yet the argument of the press is not a question of facts it’s a question of intent. Howard Kurtz laughingly states:

I don’t think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes.

I beg to differ, Gregory planned to possess an item in a location where it was prohibited by law.

If it was you or I or anyone else who possessed said device, the law would take it’s course but David Gregory is one of the elites of the media profession (not some grubby member of the Breitbart Crowd like James O’Keefe) as Noah Rothman puts it:

If the post-Newtown debate over gun control has shown that the media is somewhat out of touch with average Americans, the Gregory episode has revealed that they do not see themselves as average Americans.

He is not an average American, he is a member of a different distinct class, Bill Jacobson on the WCRN Morning Show’s case and Glenn Reynolds arguments  not withstanding as far as the media is concerned David Gregory is a courtier to the king beyond these petty rules and laws that an O’Keefe, Jacobson or DaTechGuy must follow.

——————-

“I — I couldn’t take a blow, sir. I suppose I’ve been too long with gentlemen”

Among gentlemen a blow could be wiped out only in blood; among the lower orders a blow was something to be received without even a word.

C. S. Forester: Hornblower and the Hotspur 1962 p 301

Sen. Daniel Inouye, who represented Hawaii in congress since statehood, died this week at the age of 88. Inouye served with distinction during World War 2, losing an arm, his death meant that governor Neil Abercrombie had to appoint a new senator for the seat and selected Lt. Gov Brian Schatz who flew back to the Washington with President Obama to be sworn in as Senator.

Not three weeks earlier Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced his upcoming resignation. Governor Nikki Haley in response appointed newly re-elected GOP congressman Tim Scott to the Senate seat. Scott will be the only African American member of the United States Senate and the first Black Senator from the south since 1881.

Yet while the appointment of a black American to the Senate by a female Republican governor of color has elicited responses like this…

MSNBC: Tim Scott, don’t be a token senator

Black Voices News: No reason to celebrate Tim Scott

The NYT: The Puzzle of Black Republicans

…the appointment of Brian Schatz a White Male to the Senate over Rep Colleen Hanabusa by another white Male to replace the longest serving minority in the Senate in US history has not produced a murmur of objection by the MSM.

To supporters of the GOP on the right this contrast might seem unjust but for the media and left Mr. Schatz’s and Mr. Abercrombie status, established by their political persuasion, provides the necessary imprimatur for their choices. That status means their actions are unworthy of complaint while the critique of Mr. Scott & Mrs. Haley, they are to be received without even a word.

—————–

Is that you reading Kizzy?

Roots 1977

I follow several people of the left, some that I have met, some that I haven’t and some simply because the mood struck me. One of these people is a lady by the name of Reda St. Cyr.

I know nothing about Reda than what I’ve seen on twitter and what is in the description above. As she lives in Nevada that is unlikely to change.   We’ve occasionally had disagreements over the NRA, over show ID to vote and other issues over twitter, but I know absolutely nothing else about her.

Yesterday we tweeting concerning Guns & the NRA when a subject that is a pet peeve of mine came up, the slaughter of inner city blacks that is ignored by the media and by those who march. At the end of the conversation she tweeted something I found telling:

It is the confusion that is of note here.  I’m sure Ms. St. Cyr is a nice and reasonable woman and is thought so in her community but like Q on WCRN who sees the Tea Party as totalitarian see the GOP as a force for wrong. She, unlike Q, can not wrap her head around the idea that a seemingly nice fellow could be a Republican, and even stranger that such a fellow could make a public argument to support GOP or NRA beliefs. It’s a source of expletive generating confusion.  Why it’s as unbelievable as an illiterate reading scripture.

————————————————–

All of these examples, point to a different caste, a caste that lives under a different set of laws then beneath them, a caste where behaviors are not to be questioned, a caste that reacts with amazement when a member of a lower order displays traits that they would expect from their fellows.

In short this is Feudalism, and they are the lords…well almost. as I’ll explain later.

P.S. I have an emergency bleg up to cover some expenses (oil), details are here, any help would be most appreciated.

Older Entries
Newer Entries