In the Decalogue, we find the propositions that for many centuries constituted the definition of moral / ethical law for Western man:
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet.
That handful of proscriptions, which are also known as the Noachide Commandments, was the basis of Western Civilization. Yes, we’ve added a few things along the way – no sex with animals, no crossing a double-yellow line, no wearing white after Labor Day or mixing primary colors during daylight hours, and so forth – but those had more to do with what’s seemly or tasteful than with what must be forbidden. You might not be willing to have dinner with someone who wears white after Labor Day, but you wouldn’t want to see him imprisoned or executed. (Would you?)
“Our Superiors” have discarded all of those proscriptions – on the basis of their claim of superior morality! They hold that our inferiority entitles them to do all those forbidden things to us…again, in the name of what they call “morality.”
You don’t think so? Have you listened to any of the Left’s media figures defend AntiFa? Have you heard them justify deliberate lying if it helps them to win power, or to put over some proposition about race, gender, or “climate change?” Have you totted up the number that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar…or in the panties of some lissome young thing other than their wives?
This “superior morality” the Left claims bears no relation to the moral precepts on which our society is founded. That makes it difficult to evaluate…unless, that is, you consider American society to be largely good and worthy of defense.
There are some opinions of Fran’s with which I don’t agree – this one is not among that number — but he hasn’t lost his touch.
“Freedom of religion is one of our nation’s most fundamental values, which is why it is already strongly protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution,” Isaacs said. “But the freedom of religion does not give people the right to impose their beliefs on others, to harm others, or to discriminate.”
Hmm, let’s break this down. So Sessions says that religious organizations can be exempt from providing abortion care, and Rebecca Isaacs says that’s imposing Christianity on someone. Did Sessions say you have to believe abortion is wrong? Did he ban abortion? Did he say insurance providers aren’t allowed to cover abortion?
The field of civil engineering is more exciting than most would anticipate. There are some very interesting developments and new technologies being introduced in the past few years. That said, civil engineering has always been about heritage and passion. The combination creates a unique mix that attracts a lot of civil engineering students to the field.
Whether you are studying for an online civil engineering degree or taking an offline course, there are several must-read books to look into. They can either be a part of your course or just a classic, great-to-read book about engineering. We are going to take a look at some of them in this article.
Brunel: The Life and Times of Isambard Kingdom Brunel
Isambard Kingdom Brunel is one of the greatest engineers of our time. He was also a key figure in engineering due to the changes and innovations he brought to the table. Without him, engineering would not be the same and Britain would not be the country we know today.
Behind his genius and his immense passion for engineering, Brunel was a controversial figure. He was a great marketer and an excellent showman, but his life was filled with controversies that often direct people away from his great achievements. The book by Prof. Angus Buchanan titled “Brunel: The Life and Times of Isambard Kingdom Brunel” offers a more docile yet detailed take on his work as an engineer.
This is the work from which you can learn about project management and the many unusual approaches of Brunel while getting to know the man as an engineer. He was Britain’s most innovative civil engineer and there is so much to learn from his life, his work, and his legacy.
Material Science and Engineering: A First Course
To be a complete civil engineer, you have to know the materials you work with. At top universities such as Norwich University, engineering students are taught how to work with different materials effectively. The best online masters in civil engineering programs take the subject seriously.
When it comes to material science, “Material Science and Engineering: A First Course” by V. Raghavan is a crucial book to read. It may not be as in-depth as other, more advanced books on the matter, but this book is the perfect first step into the world of material science for engineers.
Infrastructure: A Guide to the Industrial Landscape
If industrial engineering is your passion, then this last book on our list is perfect for you. “Infrastructure: A Guide to the Industrial Landscape” by Brian Hayes takes readers into the world of infrastructure and offers a unique take on the industry. The book is filled with examples and great photos, making it a very fun read.
What’s interesting about the book is the way it also talks about the recent natural disasters, mainly Hurricane Katrina and the Fukushima disaster. Reading the book feels more like an adventure thanks to the way every bit of information about the world around us is presented. The illustrations simply make the experience and the adventure, more enjoyable.
Each of these books would be a fabulous addition to your bookshelf.
At first glance it’s looks like the Harvey Weinstein story, from a journalistic standpoint seems more and more like the John Edwards Story, where liberal journalists were uninterested in telling a story that might harm their allies
An explosive scandal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the center of it was an important player in national politics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly controlled information that journalists weren’t able to find sources to corroborate the Enquirer’s reporting. Perhaps that was part of it. But the fact was, many editors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Elizabeth Edwards. They saw no good in exposing John Edwards’ sordid acts.
Journalists saw no good in exposing the sordid acts of a former, senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate.
And while there is certainly a bit of that in the Weinstein story the more I think about it the more it seems that this was all about capitalism in the Tina Brown vein.
About five years ago I did a series of piece of Tina Brown at Newsweek and Salon and her ability to coax millions out of liberals for magazine empires that never seemed to make a buck:
Unless I’m missing something all that happened is an attractive blond managed to convince some man into spending a lot of money to stake her in a business, she used said business to enhance her reputation and when she proved unable to succeed in it dumped it on the first sucker willing to take it off her hands.
Alas, there’s only one Tina and probably lots of would-be media moguls out there with millions of dollars to throw away on glitzy media operations. Send me an e-mail and we’ll do lunch.
But if you decide instead to hit Vegas and blow your millions on blackjack and hookers, I’ll understand.
A while back a few of us thought that if liberals were willing to play angels to advance liberalism conservatives should think about it too:
Jimmie has calculated — and I agree with his calculations — that you could run a pretty spiffy little conservative New Media operation for $500,000 a year if you knew what you were doing. But the problem is connecting (a) people with $500,000 to (b) people who know what they’re doing in terms of online news.
If you grant that Jimmie and I are correct about this estimate, do the math yourself: For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.
Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.
But all the arguments that folks like us were a better investment than a Tina Brown presumed that the motive for such investments were to advance ideas rather than sheer capitalism. For the establishment a guy like Strange was an investment in keeping the gravy train, a very capitalistic motive and as Stacy McCain noted yesterday the whole “liberal angel” thing with Weinstein seems to be all about capitalism too. (emphasis mine)
Rebecca Traister of New York magazine recounts her own confrontation with Weinstein’s violent abusive behavior — her called her an epithet and shoved her boyfriend down the steps at a party in 2000. She tries to explain why Weinstein’s behavior was never previously reported, including the fact that “there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or screenwriters, or for his magazine.” Talk magazine, with Tina Brown as editor, was published 1999-2002: “The cover story of the debut issue was an interview with Hillary Clinton.” In less than three years, Talk lost an estimated $50 million. This was simply another aspect of Weinstein’s power. He was willing to throw away money on a slick magazine with a big-name editor in order to buy influence among journalists. And guess what? It worked. Contrary to their own smug opinions of themselves, the journalistic elite aren’t the most ethical people on the planet.
That fifty million makes a whole lot more sense now. Apparently this wasn’t a question of spending money as a “liberal angel” helping the cause of women, gays and the left, it was paying the price for being a “lecherous devil” buying off journalists who readily decided their silence was worth it for the job, the office, the prestige, the access , the parties etc etc etc all the while telling themselves they were fighting to save the world from the evil conservatives who were trying to oppress women et/al.
This was sheer unadulterated Capitalism and apparently Mr. Weinstein got his money’s worth for decades.
Update: accidently put a gallery from a previous post at the bottom and fixed two sentences with redundant words.
As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.
If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.
Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer