There is a divide in this country that once didn’t exist a divide that is being illustrated very strongly in action both getting lots of press and being ignored”

*************************

During the shutdown we’ve seen what US Park Rangers will tolerate. They’ll tolerate strong-arming tourists and locking them in hotels, they’ll eject WW 2 vets & Vietnam nets from their memorial and even impede access to roads and business to obey the shutdown order.

The Park Service is willing to forever have their reputation tarnished to watch the Back of Obama No matter what effect it has on them.

There was a time when that would have been unthinkable.

********************************

It’s been almost 2 years since Andrew Breitbart died but Shirley Sherrod (remember her) still wants blood.

In February 2011, Kirkland & Ellis sued Andrew Breitbart and others for defamation, false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In February 2012, after weathering the pressure of the lawsuit for a year, Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure. He left a wife and four children.

One might have thought that would be the end of the matter.

Not content to have hounded Andrew for a year before he died, Shirley Sherrod’s lawyers are now seeking to add Susie Bean Breitbart as a defendant to Sherrod’s lawsuit. Andrew’s widow has been described as the nicest woman in Los Angeles. She had nothing to do with Andrew’s work at Breirtbart.com, save for perhaps putting up with his endless hours on the phone.

Breitbart was not a rich man but he had written about Pigford and Pigford and as Lee Stranahan reports Sherrod & her family had fingers in it. (emphasis mine)

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this lawsuit comes just as things are starting to heat up in the Pigford investigation. Mrs. Sherrod is connected to Pigford. She’s the largest recipient of a Pigford claim; she, er husband Charles Sherrod and the New Communities farm won over thirteen million dollars while most other farmers only got $50,000. Mrs. Sherrod was hired by the USDA after this award. Prior to being hired, she worked to help keep angry black farmers from pulling out of the lawsuit after they objected to the terms of the consent decree. And despite her hero status with many, the farmers I have personally interviewed about Mrs. Sherrod have decidedly mixed feelings about her.

It’s worth noting while she is going after Breitbart’s widdow & children who she is NOT Suing:

Shirley Sherrod resigned. She is not suing Tom Vilsack, nor is Shirley Sherrod suing Vilsack’s boss, Barack Obama.

That’s because they were enabling $13 mil in government Andrew highlighted it.

There was a time when someone trying to sue a widow & 4 children would have been unthinkable. Not Anymore.

**************************************

While it has not gotten a lot of press lately the IRS scandal still moves forward. the latest news is that the IRS apparently was sharing personal information:

Top Internal Revenue Service Obamacare official Sarah Hall Ingram discussed confidential taxpayer information with senior Obama White House officials, according to 2012 emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and provided to The Daily Caller.

Yes you read that right, the IRS, you know the people who went after the Tea Party because they opposed Obama and whose officials have taken the fifth, they are sharing taxpayer information with the White House. In fact it’s worse than it sounds:

“The data show that, had the Tea Party groups continued to grow at the pace seen in 2009 and 2010, and had their effect on the 2012 vote been similar to that seen in 2010, they would have brought the Republican Party as many as 5 to 8.5 million votes compared to Obama’s victory margin of 5 million.”

Given those numbers, it is reasonable to be suspicious of the IRS targeting, Veuger said.

And who came to those conclusions?

The AEI study was done by Veuger, Andreas Madestam of Stockholm University, and Daniel Shoag and David Yanagizawa-Drott, both from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

And it’s not just groups, individuals are worthy of investigation:

Carson said he had only his suspicions to go on, but this year was the first time his taxes had been audited by the IRS and he added that the agency had tarnished its reputation for trustworthiness in an earlier scandal.

“We are in a situation where a government agency has been used to harass opponents of the administration, which places everything that the IRS does in a light of suspicion,” Carson said in an interview Thursday. “So whether this is a massive coincidence or if I was targeted, it looks suspicious.”

There was a time when such behavior would not be tolerated where the people where the objections would be so strong they could not stand. As Glenn Reynolds put it:

If this were a Republican administration, there’d be impeachment talk on every nightly news program.

But it’s not, so it does not.

*****************************************************

In my lifetime the country would have been united against such things now this is not the case and it’s brought this kind of reaction:

More and more I’m beginning to believe that there are very few people on the left who are decent.

To get that reaction from Karen the Lonely Conservative takes an effort. To get it from Stacy McCain, well that takes no effort at all:

The Culture of Victimhood encourages people to turn every grievance into a license to inflict harm on others. Flimsy accusations rooted in dishonesty or self-pity (or both) are applauded as “courageous,” and exploitation of the system is hailed as “social justice.” A sex offender turns her crime into a fable about homophobia, a notorious convicted felon claims to be a victim of “malicious prosecution, conspiracy to abuse process, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and stalking,” and we have become so accustomed to this evidence of pervasive moral decadence that we are not even outraged by it.

I’m past the point of being angry at the people who do this stuff.

I’m angry at everybody who is not as angry about it as I am.

One thing about anger, it comes from expectations. Stacy & I are old enough that we recall when such behavior would have been way beyond the pale and Stacy’s expectations have not decreased. The question is why has the behavior become acceptable against conservatives?

Ironically the answer comes from Jake Tapper on in a Q & A on Reddit: (emphasis mine)

“Do you believe there is bias in mainstream media?” a Reddit user asked. “If yes, which way does it slant and which networks?”

“Yes I do,” Tapper replied, “but I also think it’s more complicated than just liberal bias.”

“I think there are a lot of hard-working reporters in NYC and DC who have never fired a gun, or never worked a 9-5 manual labor job, or lived in the middle of the country, or worried about their next paycheck, or have anyone in their family who serves in the military and I think that creates a cultural bias,

That’s the secret. Since the rise of secular America there have been two cultures in America, one the Traditional Judeo-Christian culture that has been part of America forever and the other the new secular one which the media and the left has embraced.

Judeo Christian values have specific definitions of right and wrong. There are things things that cross the line and those lines are the boundaries of decent behavior. Thus the while it’s fair to say George Tiller was a killer, murdering him crosses the line and no pro-life group, no member of clergy & no member of the conservative movement celebrated his actions and his killer is not elevated to hero status.

However in a secular culture where right and wrong are flexible, where the ends justify the means, where the tactics are less important that the result things are different.

The Best illustration of this came during the Chick-Fil-A protests, I covered one of them and when the protesters were talking to the MSM they ignored me so I pressed them and something interesting happened:

I was generally surprised at the time they believed I would film their license plates implying I would attempt to trace them personally some way. I was offended at the time that they would think I would do such a thing, but I misread them.

They weren’t offended that I might use such a tactic, they assumed I would because it was a tactic they would use in my place because the ends would have justified the means.

Thus Brandon Darby can be pilloried for reporting an attempt to firebomb the GOP convention since the people who wanted to do it believed the right thing

Thus: Brett Kimberlin et/al can be funded and the tactics of his crowd can be embraced because his targets are conservatives who are impacting the debate against the president.

Thus: the left can decry the Catholic Church for its position on homosexual acts yet shy away from any critique of Islam to the point of siding with those who would censor TV & send Molly Norris into hiding.

Stacy McCain calls it evil and so it is, but the primary enabler of this are not the hard core left, the Sherrods, Kimberlin’s et/al who profit from it. If you talk to people who speak in their favor individually, you’ll get a lot of “Well nobody supports this…” because as CS Lewis pointed out they, like the rest of the Human Race are children of God with that spark of conscience inside.

However good requires courage and confronting evil has a cost.

Molly Norris paid it with her fleeing.

Ben Carson paid for it with an Audit

Andrew Breitbart paid for it with his derision

Stacy McCain Aaron Worthing John Hoge pay for it via a law suit.

It has a cost of comfort, it has a cost of acceptance and of retaliation. That’s where the rest of the sentence comes from “Well nobody supports XXX BUT…”

How many are wiling to pay that price? How many IRS agents were willing to resign? How many Rangers? How many people on the left are willing to make excuses rather than critique for all kinds of excesses for fear of the retaliation?

And how many journalists are willing to cross that line, even  a little and risk rejection.  The answer can be found by how quickly Wolf Blitzer ran away from this statement on an Obamacare delay

If that small a statement produces a need to run quickly away, how much higher is the price to speak the truth to power every single day.

That’s why I’m not as angry as Robert Stacy McCain would have me be, not because I don’t object as he does, but because I know the price and I don’t expect people without courage to pay it for people they don’t understand or agree with…

*******************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

…I do ask you to pay part of that price. $305 per week. This week I’m a tad over 15% of the way.

Are there 13 people willing to kick in $20 to get me the rest of the way.

That’s your call, if you say “Yes” hit DaTipJar below:

.

Paul Abdul: Well Whatdaya think?

Man in suit: (uncomfortable) It’s very nice

Cold Hearted Snake (Video) 1989

Dryden: How did he die?

James Bond: Your contact? Not well.

Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn’t worry. The second is…

[Bond shoots Dryden]

James Bond: Yes… considerably.

Casino Royale 2006

Yesterday I wrote about the rather incredible Salon piece on abortion.

One of the best comments on the subject of abortion came last year from Andrew Klavin on July 11th 2011:

I still believe it’s possible for a person of good will to make the argument that a fetus is not fully human for some small period of its development. Thomas Aquinas did — and the man was a saint. But more and more, that point of view is coming to seem to me pre-scientific. In any case, if that’s the argument pro-choicers want to have, let’s have that argument, and no other — because no other matters. And if we as a free people decide that unborn children are children indeed, there is no moral alternative: we must not only end abortion but put our full efforts into supporting humane and broadly available methods of welcoming the unwanted.

I thought it put the entire argument into the perspective needed. If we are killing innocent life then abortion is wrong, period!. If not then it’s no worse than a hangnail, the Salon piece took the opposite track, saying So What if abortion ends life.

Almost every writer critiquing the piece gave the author credit for courage, to wit:

I give Ms. Williams props for her unstinting honesty here. It is, to my way of thinking, a rather courageous thing to speak plainly, these days, and without euphemism. It is perhaps doubly so when one is willing to simply stand up and say, “yes, I believe this is a human being, and I’m totally okay with killing him or her. People should be able to decide who lives and who dies, for any variety of reasons.”

As I’ve said I think this is misreading of the situation. Consider the Music video I quoted at the top of this post:

The song is very good, the dancing is professional but what makes the video is the discomfort of the executives watching it, getting shocked and aroused by it and when questioned for a reaction saying it’s “nice”

In 1989 this was a hot and provocative video, that had a funny ending. In 2013 it’s just funny.

This is the basic truth of what has gone on. Until this point it has been the conclusion of those on the left that to openly say “So What” to the taking of innocent life was beyond the pale.

No more, time has taken its toll and the generation that was taught Judeo-Christian values as part of the normal course of life has been replaced. Now two parallel culture exists where morality is relative, right and wrong are relative and the value of life is relative.

The secular culture has concluded it’s strong enough, prevalent enough and supported enough by the popular media that it can slowly take off the mask that has been necessary for years.

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.

I’ve been writing about a common thread of the left for a while. I’ve beaten about the bush on it, what IS the common thread to all of these things? Well that’s my lead post for tomorrow…

Sherlock Holmes: People have died.

Jim Moriarty: [shouting] That’s what people do!

Sherlock The Great Game 2010

Jim Moriarty: STAYING ALIVE!!! SO BORING, ISN’T IT??!! Just staying…all my life I’ve been looking for distraction. You were the best of distraction and now I don’t even have you. Because I’ve beaten you. And you know what? In the end, it was easy. Yeah…t’was easy…now I have to go back to play with the ordinary people.

Sherlock The Reichenbach Fall 2012

A few days ago I got an e-mail from Joy McCann about a new blog she had called Tea Cozy Mysteries and the current post is on the plethora of new Sherlock Holmes series/movies out there, the best of which is the BBC’s Sherlock that I quote above.

Today Cynthia Yockey argues against gun free zones and their danger and makes a point that needs making

Most mass murderers include suicide in their attack plan. This fact is extremely useful in preventing mass murders and reducing the death toll of those that occur. Why? Because we need to accelerate the killer’s scenario for the circumstances in which he has planned to kill himself. Isn’t that always when the armed responders have arrived and he’s cornered? That’s why we need plenty of civilians in schools, universities, churches, theaters and shopping malls who have concealed carry permits, weapons and the skill to use them. The sooner there’s return fire, the sooner the suicide is triggered and the killing stops. In addition, I predict that there will be a tipping point when there are enough people with guns and concealed carry permits that would-be mass murderers won’t like their odds and will give up on their plans.

This is a powerful argument for my school protection plan but it raises an important point.

People have talked a lot about the various psychological roots of killers such as the one in Ct. When these events occur the question is asked over and over again: What was in their mind? What drove them? What did they have inside them that took them over the edge? What made them so bored, so in need of distraction so void of purpose that they see no point in “Saying Alive” or any moral imperative in not ending the lives of others?

Strangely enough I find the answer to this question in…MeTV

About two years ago MeTV. Memorable Entertainment Television joined the ranks of the hundreds of TV networks out there. Locally there is a Boston and a New Hampshire version in my cable package and they show a vast collection of shows from the 50 thru the 80.

I’ve been looking at the shows from the 50’s and early 60’s such as Daniel Boone, Donna Reed, Gunsmoke, the Big Valley, The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction, The Rifleman, Star Trek and Hogan’s Heroes.

Television was still fairly young and these programs influenced the culture if you don’t believe it ask Russell Johnson how many time he was told by people their move toward science started with the Professor, how many people thought of space sciences after seeing Mr. Scott or how many young people today see NCIS and think Law enforcement & forensics or the Big Bang Theory and think Physics & science.

But there were other values reinforced, honor, the virtue of hard work, perseverance, respect particularly for women and the role of faith in life.

In short they reinforced a moral base, the Judeo-Christian Cultural moral base and the values it advanced.

Now two generations later after that most narcissistic generation, the baby boomers banished the values of their parents from schools and TV and our popular culture by people like the Metal Group Lamb Of God, whose lyrical themes are described in Wikipedia: They frequently use biblical references, but often convey anti-religious sentiment was shocked SHOCKED by their absense:

a disturbing number of concertgoers made noise, talked and generally disrupted the otherwise peaceful moment.

That moment being a requested moment of silence for the dead in Newtown

I am so disgusted right now- if you were one of those who wouldn’t shut up for SIXTY LOUSY SECONDS to honor twenty MURDERED CHILDREN- go look in the mirror. You are looking at a piece of sh**.

Your parents are obviously pieces of sh** too, because they raised you to behave with no dignity.

Dignity? Dignity is defined by culture, the culture of dignity has been rejected by many like yourself and replaced by the one where mainline online magazines defend sex with Donkeys.

The truth is very simple, one of the things that Christianity and the Judeo Christian Culture provides is a society that has positive values. That individuals and institutions haven’t always lived up to those values doesn’t make the values any less valid than a corrupt cop means the police should be disbanded.

For the last 50 years our media, our pop culture and those celebrated by both have told us over and over again how the Judeo-Christian culture that was once the norm has led to oppression and held people back. Those who have for generations urged and promoted its abandonment for the sake of narcissism now are shocked that young people with no center, no faith and no culture that reinforced those positive values are so anxious to kill themselves either on their own or via suicide by notoriety?

People are talking about how first person shooters may have an influence on people, violent lyrics, suicide wishes, misogynistic rap, and more has on the culture today. Obviously if these things alone were the root cause of this type of stuff we would have more shootings then we do, but for some who are weak or disturbed or in despair Judeo-christian values provided a cultural firewall that can help restrain those who need restraining, even if you don’t buy the underlying religion behind it.

Marx once said that religion was the opiate of the masses, even if you don’t believe in religion in general or Christianity in particular I think a stronger dose of this opiate might have done some real good here.

I think Cynthia Yockey’s point above is very valid, but wouldn’t it be nice if it wasn’t? Wouldn’t it be better if we had a culture where the very thought of suicide among youth, let alone suicide coupled with mass murder wasn’t even on the table?

I submit and suggest that the return of those values represent a greater horror to those baby boomers leading our culture, crying for the disarmament of all but their bodyguards, than the shootings in Newtown ever will.

They will accept gladly inflict a new generation of Moriarty wannabes than admit their parents were right.

If you give me power, I’ll use it

Lady Agrippinna to Claudius. I Claudius 1976

One of the disadvantages of abandoning Judeo-Christian ethics is that you get an interesting crop of ‘Ethicists’

We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her … it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense …

what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

We who subscribe to the old-fashioned oppressive philosophy of traditional western civilization refer to this as “murder”.

I would say I was surprised at this post at Breitbart (via smitty) but that would be as dishonest as a Democrat in the White House denying they are connected with Hilary Rosen:

I would make the obvious statement that this is simply evil, and I mean Satanic level evil, but our modern secular society has decided that “evil” is relative and “Satan” is superstition so let me make the self-interest argument that such folks will understand:

Once you decide to abandon the Judeo-Christian principle that all lives are of equal value in the eyes of God, once Doctors abandon the traditional Hippocratic Oath then things like “personhood” and “life” and “ethics” can be defined however those with power choose to do so, I assure you they will.

And when the day comes when someone playing Kodos decides to define YOUR life or your children’s lives as something without value to society, a waste of scarce resources better used for others, remember who willingly gave them the power to declare you obsolete.

You have been warned.

Update: Let me make something clear that might not be clear otherwise, one does not have to believe in the God or the doctrine of either Judaism or Christianity (or as I call him God) to agree that the Judeo-Christian ethic of all life being of value is an important one and a healthy one for a society. It is on that Juedo-Christian ethic that western Civilization is built (with kudos to the Greeks for the ideas of Democracy and Republicanism).

Update 2: Bill Quick who I admire and while agreeing with me on the sheer evil of this suggestion considers the post an “unwarranted smear against atheists” and points to an example of Christians violating their own tenants tenets. Fair point, many Christians do, but that reflects on those who violate those tenants, not the tenants> tenets themselves, as Christ himself said:

“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. Matthew 23:2-3

I would still submit that the weakness of a moral code not God based means it can be altered by man or even by majority vote, and when that is true anything is possible depending on the current (ICK factor).

Remember civilization, peace and justice is not the default position in the history of men or nations, that’s why America for all it’s faults that our friends on the left love to point out is as special as it is.

Update 3: Typed tenants instead of tenets but for the record, if a Christian violates his “tenants” that’s against the “tenets” of the church too.

Being a sarcastic fellow when I saw the title of Joy’s piece: “The Titanic at 100 what does it mean?” my answer was: “Rust” but after reading her piece I noticed something that perfectly illustrates the difference between a secular atheistic society and the Judeo-Christian culture:

What is interesting to me, of course, is that while Anglo-Americans mourned the Titanic, and romanticized her, and prayed for the victims, and attempted to care for the survivors, they continued building ships, though with more lifeboats and stricter attention to iceberg warnings. There was no call to stop crossing the Atlantic; only to do it a bit more wisely and safely. Likewise, after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire (a year earlier, or six months after the date named in Woolf’s saucy assertion) we continued to manufacture clothing in New England; we just no longer locked the exits, so that in the event of a fire the women working within would not be trapped and burn alive.

Now, in the post-modern age, many disasters simply lead to a collective sitting-on-our-hands: the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was followed by nearly a decade of design-by-committee and hand-wringing over whether the WTC site should be rebuilt at all, and if so, how. The “Freedom Tower,” or WTC 1, is finally rising, but it took ten years for New Yorkers to see physical progress at the site. The Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico cost eleven men their lives, but cost the entire Gulf region many tens of thousands of jobs when the Obama Administration used it as an excuse to stop/slow the issuance of permits for drilling in the Gulf.

That weakness is cowardice.

When one is afraid one can not make decisions, when one is afraid one hesitates, that applies from the Principal of a school who bans tag at recess all the way up to refusing to rebuild the trade center, it is everything from companies intimidated by Astroturf twitter campaigns to individuals afraid to tell a friend a necessary truth.

When one believes in (lets show some courage) acknowledges the truth of Christianity, it gives a great advantage. It can provide the courage to make choices that might be uncomfortable, that involve risk, that even involve reproach from their fellow creatures.

When one does not, when you have only one life to live and when it’s done you’re done, it’s every man for himself. Survival of the fittest we become less Titanic and more Costa Concordia.

Your choice west, What will it be?

Update: Cripes I should know it’s McCann not McCain, fixed

On of the advantages of age combined with Wealth is you tend not to care what other people think.

So I’m sure that John Cleese is not going to lose any sleep over this:

Cleese, who is performing in Sydney, was asked on Australian TV what he thought of last month’s riots around the UK.

He replied: “I’m not sure what’s going on in Britain. Let me say this, I don’t know what’s going on in London because London is no longer an English city.

“That’s how they got the Olympics. They said, ‘We’re the most cosmopolitan city on Earth’, but it doesn’t feel English.

“I had a Californian friend come over two months ago, walk down the King’s Road and say to me, ‘Well, where are all the English people?’

“I love having different cultures around but when the parent culture kind of dissipates, you’re left thinking, ‘What’s going on?’ ”

Even more ironic the people who rightly celebrate Cleese as a comic genius who mocked English culture for decades seem to be less tolerant of his words today.

It’s a sad statement on England but at least it’s an excuse to embed Python.

Mordcha: Why should I break my head about the outside world. Let the outside world break it’s own head!

Tevye: He’s right, as the good book says: ‘If you spit in the air it lands in your face.’

Perchik: Nonsense you can’t close your eyes to what’s happening in the world

Tevye: He’s Right

Avram: He’s right, and he’s right? They can’t both be right.

Tevye: You know… you are also right

There is a lot of fuss about Perry’s remarks about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme

in Des Moines, when a reporter asked about the suggestion that his campaign was backing off some positions in the staunch states-rights book, Perry said, “I haven’t backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right.”

And the left reacts with either ‘s laughs, snark, insults or fear

So who’s right, Perry and the Right or the left? If you look at the question with a smart eye it’s clear who is right.

Rick Santorum!

Why, because Santorum has made the argument that many of our fiscal issues have their origin in social changes that have been harmful to our nation.

The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion.

And it’s not just the culture of Abortion, it’s the culture of birth control and of Children as a burden vs a blessing.

When Social Security was designed the culture of the nation was solidly Judeo-Christian. If you have a culture where large families are celebrated and encouraged then Social Security goes from Ponsi scheme to a sustainable program for centuries. As the population continues to increase the technology does as well and is able to support it. As Stacy McCain pointed out:

In 1957, at the peak of the Baby Boom, the U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of births per woman, over the course of her lifetime, based on annual rates — reached 3.74. As any student of statistics should see, this number meant that the typical American woman was far more likely to have four children than to have only three.

Or for every childless woman out there in the US you could find a mother of 6 or more out there.

However with the 60’s “do what you want” culture taking root with it culmination of a culture of death where presidential candidates argue their daughters shouldn’t be “punished with children” or that Pregnancy is treated as a disease, suddenly you don’t have the population to sustain a program like Social Security nor as Europe is finding out a population to sustain the cultural norms like free speech. As Pundit put it:

So this is what is at the bottom of the pro-choice argument — they are “disgusted” by pregnancy and birth? I thought it was supposed to be the crazy fundamentalists that hated the human body and feared sex. How sick do you have to be to be revolted by the process that brings new life, that brought your life, into being?

Or as Stacy McCain put it: Anti-science!

Anti-natalist sentiments are a natural byproduct of the Contraceptive Culture, which propagates the belief that sex without pregnancy is normal, and where pregnancy is considered a rare medical anomaly.

This way of thinking — nowadays so common that we don’t even recognize it as an ideological phenomenon — is an inversion of nature.

From a strictly biological point of view, procreation is the only purpose of sex. People who like to condemn conservatives as being “anti-science” because we don’t go along with the global-warming crusade ought to be asked to explain why they are so hostile to the scientific purpose of sex, i.e., making babies.

One of the advantages that comes with age is the ability to see how things work over generations. As a person interested in history since childhood I’ve had the incredible luck to be born at a time where not only massive changes were taking place but access to information for the ordinary man was almost unprecedented in history both in terms of books and electronics. Looking at the evidence of history, current events and my own eyes over the years I must conclude that the adoption of the 60’s culture of hedonism and narcissism by our society has been the cause of the greatest self-inflicted hemorrhage of blood and treasure the country has ever seen since the Civil War.

Bottom line, Social Security in the culture it was designed for was not a Ponzi scheme, but the cultural changes that took place in the sixties have made it into one. Perry argument treats the symptom, which is important, but Santorum argument address the cause, that is better.

Update: Smitty weighs in

The interesting question raised by the Politico article is whether the Boomers are sufficiently enslaved by entitlements. Are they indoctrinated into beliefs about ‘rights’ to Social Security and Medicare that have become velvet handcuffs over time, so that the Boomers can be manipulated into turning against a candidate like a Perry, or a Cain, or a Santorum, who has the courage to speak the truth? I wish that ideas of liberty and American Exceptionalism were sufficiently strong to make that a silly question, but they are not.

O’Rourke famously noted that 2010 was not an election; it was a restraining order. 2012, therefore, will be liberty on trial, prosecuted by a Progressive werewolf in bespoke and Gucchis. Will conservatives rally around a McCotter, or even Palin? Or will they be deceived and support Romney, whose hair is perfect?

That depends on which side of the cultural divide they fall on.

Yesterday I was at the Border Grille for lunch to talk ads with the owner when I ran into an old friend of mine who I haven’t seen in a few years. We talked about the show a bit and our mutual love of gaming when the subject of the election came up and I saw a phenom that I’ve seen a lot lately in the Republican Party.

My friend is an educated man in his 40’s. Both he and his father owned small business and are longtime republicans. We were going through the potential GOP nominees when he declared he was afraid of Rick Perry because of his fundamentalist belief in the Bible (specifically on evolution). He argued that if he doesn’t believe in Evolution what OTHER science does he not believe in?

I’ve already said something in my gut doesn’t care for Rick Perry but this caused me to do a double take; I answered:

“Unemployment is 9.1%, the economy is in the tank and you’re worried about a candidate’s position on how old the planet is?”

This whole “The GOP candidates are religious nuts” motif has been a big theme for the left and the media culminating in Bill Keller’s piece at the NYT yesterday.

Byron York pointed out that there is a method in this belief in madness via a pair of tweets pointing out:

Also on Keller: Time spent discussing religious tests, Trojan horses and ‘fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity’…is time spent not discussing unemployment. With jobless rate at 9.1%, that’s a major Democratic goal.:

After all to a guy who has just finished his 99 weeks of unemployment and is on food stamps no issue is more vital than if the world is 6000 or 600,000,000,000 billion years old!

The distraction method is important to the Democrats trying to win, but there is something more visceral going on nationally that goes beyond mere party that is being missed. Lisa Graas (my guest on DaTechGuy on DaRadio this week) spotted a piece of the puzzle in this with interview with Rick Santorum in the Colorado Independent:

But at least today I think what you’d see is that Catholics are pretty much all over the board. I mean, when I was growing up as a kid, pretty much everybody I knew that was Catholic was Democrat. That’s not the case anymore.

The question is whether you’re church-going or not.

If you’re a church-going Catholic by and large you’re a Republican, just like if you’re a church-going Protestant by and large you’re a Republican. And if you’re not church-going by and large you’re not.

This goes back to something I wrote about years ago:

Since the 60′s two unifying forces, for good or ill, were removed from the country: the removal of Judeo/Christian values as the semi-official moral code of the public schools) and the death of the draft/aka Vietnam. (actually ending in the 70′s). These two changes had one thing in common, it took two generations for them to have the following effect:

It is now unlikely that a student going to school today, had a teacher or parent who 1. Served in the military or 2. Was taught that moral code in school. To a whole generation now being born these are things that belong to outsiders. This makes the military and religious people outsiders and strange to one group and vice versa. Since the military draws predominantly from those two groups it will become more isolated from the rest of the public as time goes by.

There are now two parallel cultures in the US: One the culture born out of the 60’s that is secular and narcissistic. To that culture the primary sin is to …define something as sin or forbidden. The other is the Judeo-Christian culture that the country has lived under since it’s founding.

The distinguishing characteristic of the secular culture, driven by their lack of belief both in God and in themselves, is fear: Fear of salt in food, fear of traumatizing children by making rules, fear of offending anybody, fear of judgement calls. Simply put fear of being held responsible for anything. That is why it loves government control. Every responsibility and decision that government takes on is one less that they have to make for themselves or can be blamed for.

And Rachel Maddow wonders why we don’t build great things?

This brings us to Rick Perry and my friend’s fear of him. When I look at Perry the remarkable thing about him is how unremarkable he is. Anytime in the last 100 years his background and beliefs would be decidedly uncontroversial. In large swaths of the country where the traditional culture exists he is just another pol (with a good record on jobs).

The problem is in that parallel secular culture where so many of the left live, these views are totally alien and moreover the entertainment & news media that informs them (drawn primarily from that secular culture) alternates between mocking religious Americans as ignorant fools or painting them as murderous inbred fanatics.

It’s reached the point where the left fears the United States return to an imaginary past that only exists in their minds, bearing no resemblance to that time that still exists in living memory.

To them prior to Abington School District v. Schempp, the US lived in a Christian Theocracy where Jews and Gays are slaughtered and all culture was repressed. They are able to look at Pat Robinson and see Bin Laden while at the same time can look at Major Malik Nadal Hassan and see nothing. They look at the era before the sixties and see only segregation and repression while still calling the architects of that era “The Greatest Generation” without blinking an eye. It’s that cultural change that I noted before Obama’s inauguration:

Until 2008 a pastor like Rick Warren would never have been considered a controversial choice to be at any inaugural event. His inclusion wouldn’t have caused an eye to bat once.

Until 2008 a Bishop like Gene Robinson would have been impossible to include in any inaugural event without a massive uproar that would have been politically untenable.

So why all the panic about a Rick Perry now? Consider:

For just about 40 years the levers of our pop and media culture have been firmly in the hands of that secular culture. It was at its peak of power in the 90’s and seemed poised to fundamentally and permanently change the nation when it was hit by two giants jolts:

1. The internet which began the rise of alternate media and the demise of their monopoly on communication

2. 9/11 where reality caused the country to turn to the military, an institution overwhelmingly populated by members of the traditional culture that they feared and distrusted.

For a moment it looked like the nomination of Obama, a person deeply steeped in their own culture, might bring the nirvana they always dreamed of, but instead of the final nail in the coffin of traditional culture, his fecklessness, inability to lead and his multiple failures everywhere but, ironically, in war, threatens to turn the country right back in the direction they thought was totally purged.

Even worse it seems to confirm their culture’s inferiority complex. To a culture that decided to use everything from drugs, to politics to the earth itself to fill the empty space that religion once held the achievement of those who came before towers over them. I suspect they dub their grandparents the “Greatest Generation” because it excuses them from even attempting to achieve what their Grandparents & Great Grandparents did in much harder times. It’s why a person like Sarah Palin disgusts them so. She and people like her are a constant reminder of what they could have been but rejected.

And that’s where the fiscal conservatives come in.

Fiscal conservatives tend to deal with real world business problems. Actual figures tend to ground them in reality. They can see the president’s fiscal policies for what they are and want change, but their immersion in the secular culture gives surrounds them with the cloud of the same fear and loathing of the religious that the far left holds.

Democrats understand this and are playing it for all it’s worth. Can their grounding in reality overcome the irrational fears that the left has with people whose religious beliefs, would for most of the country’s existence be unremarkable and mainstream? That’s the $64,000 question.

We will find out in Tampa next year.

Update: Instalanche, thanks Glenn and if you want another good look at the culture wars, check out Peg post at What-if called Free to be Me:

I thought that the point of the feminist revolution is that then, we would be “free to be me” – whoever that “me” happened to be. For myself, “me” is working as a Realtor, competing in tournament bridge, taking zillions of photographs, and spending time nurturing my relationships with friends and family. I ended up not being fortunate enough to have children. But, had I done so, I might easily have chosen the ranks of the “just housewife and mom” as some others have. I do not find a scintilla of shame in being a wonderful mommy and wife. Indeed; if there were more devoted mommies and wives out there, perhaps so much of the world wouldn’t be in such a shambles. Perhaps – and perhaps not. The point, however, is that we all ought to have the choice.

Read the whole thing

Update 3: If you are interested in my take on God and Science it’s here and on evolution it’s here.

Update 4: Stacy McCain treats me very kind in his own Magnum Opus

Update 5: Captain Ed asks the question I’ve answered above.

A person my age or older would be familiar with the term “Shotgun Wedding”. The idea being that a man who got a girl pregnant would be forced by the father of the girl, Shotgun in hand to the altar for the wedding. That line of thinking is in keeping with the idea Stacy McCain advanced about the the economics of love. Roxeanne DeLuca in comments also advanced this very Judeao-Christian idea:

These days, men think there’s just women you sleep with, that’s it. And pardon me if I think that, as a WOMAN, I should have the grounds to say, “If this isn’t emotional for you, if you could do this with any woman, or any woman with the right equipment and the right attitude, then I don’t want it from you.”

As it is, though, we’re expected to act like prostitutes, without the benefits and without the emotional reserve. When sexually loose women are “nice girls”, or tell you that they are, men WILL expect ALL nice women to be sexually loose.

The 60’s revolution ended this bigtime and some are still paying the price but there is one thing about this way of thinking that needs to be pointed out.

The entire idea of the shotgun wedding or the threat of the shotgun wedding is to protect the women and restrain the man. The idea being the man might think twice before trying to be a player if he know that it means he will have to follow through.

In this age of contraception and abortion those restraints are gone and the feminists of the left cheer this abandonment of the traditional Judeao-Christian meme as a triumph for women no matter the result.

There is however another side of the coin that the feminist left isn’t too loud in condemning.

Afshan Azad, 21, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the teenage wizard, in the blockbuster Hollywood films based on JK Rowling’s children’s books, feared for her life during the three-hour ordeal, Manchester Crown Court heard.

She was punched, dragged around by her hair and strangled by her brother Ashraf Azad, 28, who threatened to kill her after he caught her talking on the phone to her Hindu boyfriend on May 21 last year, the court was told.

During the row at the family home in Longsight, Manchester, which also involved her mother and father, she was branded a ”slag” and a ”prostitute” and told: ”Marry a Muslim or you die!”

Note the cultural difference here. The threats are not against the man, they are against the woman. The threat of violence is not against the man for the advances, it is against the woman. Either way the Judge hearing the case decided to make a statement about violence against women:

Judge Thomas added: ”This is a sentence that is designed to punish you for what you did and also to send out a clear message to others that domestic violence involving circumstances such as have arisen here cannot be tolerated.”

And so he sentenced the guy to….for six months after he pleaded guilty to the assault.

As Cubachi points out:

This is attempted murder, and he’s only getting six months? Azad’s case is well known throughout the world due to her celebrity status, however, this is occurring to young Muslim girls throughout the world who are deemed too “Westernized” or a betrayer to Islam.

Some on the right have highlighted this kind of thing, the left…not so much. Why the difference in reaction to the Judeao-Christian cultural norm and not the Islamic one? Why is one a sign of repressive patriarchy and the other just a cultural difference and any objection Islamaphobia?

It’s a good question and I’d love to hear the answer.

Fresh off of yesterday’s 60’s post we have this gem via Robert Stacy McCain concerning a young lady that I’ve never heard of:

“My mom left me at home when I was 14 with a credit card and a box of condoms and the keys to the car and said, ‘Don’t get pregnant and don’t drink and drive'” she explained. “I had to be responsible for myself.”

Think about that for a moment. Here is your 14-year-old daughter and your parenting consists of negative rules that are in effect positive permissions as follows:

  • Spend what you want
  • Have sex with whatever guy you want
  • Drive where you want to go
  • Drink what you want

This is what we call in the Italian Catholic world the “Parenting is such a drag and I don’t want to do it.” method.

I’m sure this young lady does well financially but I’ve got to tell you I really would be mortified if either of my sons brought this young lady home. It’s certainly possible that she might rise above that nonsense but I think I’d be very worried about her raising my grandchildren.

We are not rich, my 17 year old son doesn’t have his permit yet (as his grades don’t yet warrant it but this report card might change that) My 18 year old son was given a copy of my credit card and writes me a check each month for what he spends. My boys have the combination of the very Catholic influences of my now 86 year old mother (who retired when they were 1 and 3 perfect timing for me) and my three basic rules that I’ve been drilling them with since before they were teens:

  • No Booze
  • No Drugs
  • No Sex

Whenever I would leave the house I would say: “What are the rules?” I’ve asked them this question in front of their friends. They know these rules. And they choose and keep their friends accordingly. Kids coming into this house KNOW that if I find drugs with them they are out and the cops are called.

Answer me this: I don’t know if they will ever make anything near what that young lady makes and there is no guarantee that they will turn out in better shape in the long run that this woman, but tell me. Which ones do you want parenting your grandchildren?

If you are going to be a parent BE A PARENT, raise your children and take charge.

You will find it the most rewarding thing you do.

The myth that “you can’t stop your kids from doing X” is just that, a myth. It’s an excuse to not parent. Where would the Jets be this week if they bought the “You can’t stop Brady” stuff? Those Judeo-Christian values and rules were rejected by the 60’s generation had the expected result.

In only two generations the social ills that had been dodged to a great extent are now common.

All of this has happened in my lifetime. If you are 60 or above you have seen this change in front of you. Can you honestly say this cultural change was worth it?

In the long run the right thing is usually the smart thing. If you don’t want to do something because it is “right” according to people you don’t like, then do it because it is smart.