Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

DeSantis is so much better than The Chairman, Kamala and DJT that it's insulting to him to include him in that bunch. Hopefully I get a chance to vote for him.

Meanwhile Ds will continue to advise the Rs to nominate tool bags like Hogan.

[iam416]

I think this is pretty much spot on from Kevin Williamson re the Progs definite problems, the opportunity for the Rs and, of course, the likelihood they'll bungle it:

The Left’s woundedness after Dobbs is only partly about abortion politics — it is in a much more significant way an expression of the fact that the Left thinks of the Supreme Court as its own territory. The Left doesn’t cry very much when the world produces a conservative banker, a conservative admiral, or a conservative pastor — the Left has its own interests in finance, the military, and the clergy, but it doesn’t see these as its own institutions, its subsidiaries. The Left has a much more proprietary attitude about the courts, along with the media and the universities. There are lots of mediocre cable-news networks in the world — the Left hates Fox News not because Fox News has so many conservative voices but because a right-leaning cable-news station is a thing that is not supposed to exist as far as progressives are concerned. Conservatives are supposed to be guests on progressive-run shows on progressive-run networks, speaking at the sufferance of the progressives who, in the Left’s understanding of the natural order of things, run the media. Fox News isn’t very good, but, even if it were, the Left would object to its existence.

That’s the same reason the Left hates institutions such as Hillsdale College and sneers at the nascent University of Austin, which does not propose to be right-wing at all but simply proposes to be something other than left-wing, a center of excellence and authentic intellectual freedom. The Left doesn’t hate Ross Douthat the National Review writer; the Left hates Ross Douthat the New York Times columnist, the Ross Douthat who occupies what the Left sees as its own territory. The extraordinary hatred the Left has for black conservatives, female conservatives, and gay conservatives is rooted in the same proprietary thinking: These people are not supposed to exist. The Rust Belt union-hall types who flocked to Donald Trump in 2016 were supposed to be Bernie Sanders voters — in fact, some of them had been Bernie Sanders voters, and the fact that they did not stay on the left for the sake of Hillary Rodham Clinton meant that they had to be — this is the progressive cosmology at work — racists.

Democrats forgot the part where they are meant to ask such people for their votes. Working-class people, African Americans, women, gay people, etc., are just supposed to know where to go and for whom to vote — without being asked, without anybody’s trying to convince them. When this does not happen, the Left is nonplussed or enraged. Why? Because progressives have spent two generations working under the assumption that convincing the editors of the New York Times is enough, that winning the argument at that level of opinion is winning the argument everywhere and for all time.

Meanwhile, political reality has moved on without them.

There is a lesson in this for conservatives. Progressives have for too long relied on a small and shrinking constituency while driving potential allies out of their coalition — because you are never woke enough — while relying on a very limited set of points of power that are small in number even if great in influence. When all of your power is invested in a small handful of institutions, losing one — such as the Supreme Court — is a devastating political setback. It is more practical and more efficacious — if a great deal more work — to build a broad-based movement of generally shared interests and values and to eschew the fanaticism and extremism that naturally limits a political movement of any kind, even if that fanaticism and extremism is useful for fundraising and for winning power in intra-factional disputes and rivalries.

There is a despairing, defeatist strain of conservatism that insists that the Left is always winning, that the Left controls everything, that the Right is feckless, powerless, and hopeless. That is a very strange thing to insist on after watching Sam Alito rip up Roe v. Wade, seeing the so-called John Roberts Court dramatically revealed as the Clarence Thomas Court. That rightist defeatism is at odds with the political facts on the ground.

With progressive economic policies in disrepute, a weak Democratic president, a moribund Democratic Congress, a popular revolt against “woke” excesses, the ascendence of conservative jurisprudence, the enduring robustness of right-to-libertarian counterinstitutions, and other advantageous developments, conservatives in fact at this moment have a historical, generational opportunity in front of us, the main stumbling block (a considerable one) being a dysfunctional and corrupt Republican Party.

The question for conservatives is whether they desire a focused and disciplined politics of responsible social change or the continuation of the politics of catharsis. What conservatives have to offer — what we should have to offer — is pretty good: a politics oriented toward liberty and prosperity, informed by real experience, rooted in the American tradition and our constitutional order, an emphasis on family and community, a preference for a genuinely open and tolerant society, an assertive position in the world and the strength to back it up, openness to innovation, pride in the excellence and fundamental goodness of our country, pride in the decency and accomplishments of the American people, who are our neighbors and not our enemies, whatever our political differences.

Or we could paint our faces and put on our bison horns and see how that works out.

Put another way, the question for conservatives is whether we intend to take our own ideas seriously and seize this moment, or if we instead prefer to repeat the mistakes that have led progressives to defeat and despair. It really is our choice.

[Obi-Jon]

DeSantis fits in nicely, the 4th pea in the pod.

Hogan’s okay. So is Asa Hutchinson or Ben Sasse or Chris Sununu. The GOP has plenty to choose from without diving into the dumpster. Not sure if the same can be said about the Dems. They need new, and younger, blood not beholden to the extremes.

[Hannibal]

I saw a poll today that said Trump was favored by Republicans by 40% over DeSantis. Stupid party

I don’t think that the gap is that large. But the nomination is definitely Trump’s if he wants it.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I moved it.

Ukraine: Some worth reporting events ....... The city of Lysychansk in theLuhansk province has been occupied by Russian forces who appear to have walked in after Ukrainian forces withdrew starting as early as June 28th. The twin Luhansk province cities of Severdonetsk and Lysyansk are symbolic victories more than strategic ones for the Russians. The Russian army has, more than anything, amassed it's artillery, sequentially pummeled these two cities, destroying them in the process, had soldiers walk in, unopposed by Ukrainian defenders, and plant Russian Federation flags in the ruble.

West of these twin cities and within the Luhansk province lies Bhakmut and Slovyansk. The taking of these two cities, likely the next objective of the Russian army, will give Russia de-facto control of the Luhansk province to be run collaboratively with the LNR and Russian administrators. Most of the Donetsk province, currently run by the DNR, is headed that way too. There's indications that the Kremlin will work to annex most of the "crescent", I've called it, in some form, to the Russian Federation. This includes the land bridge from Crimea to Luhansk that boarders the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

What's happening on the ground belies the difficulty that Putin will have in administering (owning) this territory. Parts of it are politically pro-Russian but before the invasion started in February, the LNR and DNR -administrators of the two territories that the Russian Duma declared as independent republics - while administered by pro-Russians, resistance was present. It still is and across the entirety of the "crescent." The brutality of the Russian offensive does not sit well with all the residents of these areas.

Analysts believe that once Russia obtains what it thinks defines control through occupation of the territory it seeks, there is a good chance that the war will enter a sort of deep freeze - the Russians occupy territory that they may or may not actually control and really have not won. Neither have the Ukrainians won. OTH, both sides are exhausted. Losses have been staggering for both Ukraine and Russia. What we're likely to see are cease fires followed by violations of them, followed by cease fires and on and on over an extended period of months if not years. Ukraine is not going to go to the negotiating table with hat in hand.

Today, although no one is identifying who launched them, Belgorod, a large Russian city under 100km from Kharkiv suffered an attack within it's city center similar to those that Ukrainian cities have experienced. The Ukrainians did claim responsibility for an attack on the Russian held city of Melipotol in the SE of Ukraine with long range rocket fire. These are signals - demonstrations that Ukraine can reach out and touch the Russians when and where it chooses to do so. The Russians are especially vulnerable north of Kharkiv where Ukrainian forces have approached the Russian boarder and in the south, in the Kherson province, where Ukrainian partisans are active and the Ukrainian army has launched counter-offensives.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Talent, what did I miss on the application of the first and 9th As wrt to their application in the pro-life, pro-choice debate?

[iam416]

Ludicrous is too much. When I re-read the full post it was plausible. There’s no “right to privacy” in the 1st A and the 9th A isn’t a blank slate to create Constitutional rights. It’s more of a rule of construction.

But, in any event, I shouldn’t have stuck my nose in. Obsessively correcting posts is the nefarious game AA plays and I’ll be damned if I sink to his level of decrepitude.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Geezer, regardless of a religious sect's beliefs about the fetus, my point was that courts should issue rulings on the law disregarding religious influences that some will argue should apply. That's what the Supremes just did in striking Roe v. Wade. Even though I'm pro-choice, it's not the government's role to interfere in such decisions.

Linesman correctly articulates my view that arguing religious impact on the law becomes fruitless when the two sides may have diametrically opposed views of the existence of a God and all that follows the belief that there is one.

[AlabamAlum]

Jeff,

Jason Bezerkly, in a rare moment of wisdom, once said to me, “Not every hook deserves a fish.”


You are welcome.

Yours in the FSM,
AAlum, Super Genius, Salt-of-the-Earth, All around nice guy

[THE_WIZARD_]

DeSantis fits in nicely, the 4th pea in the pod.

Hogan’s okay. So is Asa Hutchinson or Ben Sasse or Chris Sununu. The GOP has plenty to choose from without diving into the dumpster. Not sure if the same can be said about the Dems. They need new, and younger, blood not beholden to the extremes.

Ben Sasse? Guffaw. He is hated in Nebraska almost as much as Biden

[Jeff Buchanan]

Kevin Williamson writes above that the problem for conservatives is the chaos and corruption of the R party - ostensibly the one that should present voters with good conservative candidates for office.

The underlying cause of those two problems is the turn toward Trumpism and away from Mom and America Apple pie (you get the point. Williamson named all of those things under that heading)...... and after naming all of them and offering this is what conservatives have to offer he says this (I love it):

Or we could paint our faces and put on our bison horns and see how that works out.

Put another way, the question for conservatives is whether we intend to take our own ideas seriously and seize this moment, or if we instead prefer to repeat the mistakes that have led progressives to defeat and despair. It really is our choice.

I dunno, maybe I'm overly optimistic but the pivotal moment for conservative governance, after 4y of an ass-clown who claimed he was a conservative R and 2y, so far of an incompetent, Septuagenarian D in the oval office, is right there for the taking. I just can't see that moment being "bungled."

[Da Geezer]

Geezer, regardless of a religious sect's beliefs about the fetus, my point was that courts should issue rulings on the law disregarding religious influences that some will argue should apply. That's what the Supremes just did in striking Roe v. Wade. Even though I'm pro-choice, it's not the government's role to interfere in such decisions.

Linesman correctly articulates my view that arguing religious impact on the law becomes fruitless when the two sides may have diametrically opposed views of the existence of a God and all that follows the belief that there is one.

I'm assuming you are in favor of some law of some kind. You are not an anarchist. You say "courts should issue rulings on the law disregarding religious influences..."

Well, where does the law that the SC needs to follow come from in the first place? You can start with Hammurabi if you want, or the Tenach and Moses, but part of being civilized has to do with laws we agree on that benefit society. In the West, those laws, by and large, are derived from the Hebrew scriptures. That is just a fact. I suppose we could go into Sharia Law or Confusious, but Christianity and Judaism have dominated our culture. In most places worldwide, religion predates the law. The law results from the religion in any jurisdiction. If you want to argue that the dominant religion in the US is changing to your form of atheism, you might have a point.

We were debating abortion. There is no serious debate among the major religions that killing a pre-born baby is murder. The pro-life people stand with billions of religious people worldwide over thousands of years in abhorring murder. We are not some sect who have "packed the court" and come up with a decision that does away with a constitutional right. We are the overwhelming majority in this country.

In the Bible, the Hebrews began offering child sacrifices to the fertility god, Baal. Baal's consort was named Asherah. Asherah poles (phallic symbols) were placed all over the country in the "High Places" and sacrifices were made to Baal and Asherah in order for them to make the crops abundant. Eventually, Jews began offering that which is most precious, their children. What is most objectionable to me personally about abortion, other than the fact that it is murder, is that it is done for personal financial gain. There is a massive difference between aborting a baby carried by a 10-year-old whose life is probably in danger and having an abortion at six months because you cannot financially support the baby. I believe abortion in order to keep working at your lucrative job is the same as sacrificing children to Baal.

Now I'm not one of those Bible believers who says, "If the Bible told me that Jonah ate the whale, I'd believe it." But I do think the Bible contains a lot of wisdom that forms a foundation for a good life.

[Da Geezer]

I dunno, maybe I'm overly optimistic but the pivotal moment for conservative governance, after 4y of an ass-clown who claimed he was a conservative R and 2y, so far of an incompetent, Septuagenarian D in the oval office, is right there for the taking. I just can't see that moment being "bungled."

Let's agree on the platform Williamson lays out before the buffalo horns:

a politics oriented toward liberty and prosperity, informed by real experience, rooted in the American tradition and our constitutional order, an emphasis on family and community, a preference for a genuinely open and tolerant society, an assertive position in the world and the strength to back it up, openness to innovation, pride in the excellence and fundamental goodness of our country, pride in the decency and accomplishments of the American people, who are our neighbors and not our enemies, whatever our political differences.

Do the Democrats favor any of those things?

I, too, don't want the Stupid Party to bungle it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

It would seem Jeff, an aged yachting dilettante, whose legal knowledge consists mainly of Season 3 of Matlock plus an unopened HD-DVD version of The Pelican Brief, has schooled our resident "legal expert".

[Jeff Buchanan]

In most places worldwide, religion predates the law. The law results from the religion in any jurisdiction.

If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance. James Madison, for instance, was vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs.

We are not some sect who have "packed the court" and come up with a decision that does away with a constitutional right. We are the overwhelming majority in this country.

...... again, the wisdom of James Madison who coined the term "The Tyranny of the Majority."

The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed something more lasting: a republic. Something with checks and balances. A system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority. I still believe in the Republic. I may not have agreed with SCOTUS on the impact of this matter but I support the underlying argument they made in over-turning Roe v. Wade. At this point, decisions on abortions have been returned to the states where they belong...... the state's elected representatives and the people that elected them.

But I do think the Bible contains a lot of wisdom that forms a foundation for a good life.

We agree. I'm opposed, however, to having it used as a gudgeon.