The Hypocrisy of the Vulgar Left

So, you wanna talk about sh**holes. Here’s yer top ten sh**holes nobody wants to visit.

But, history has something teach us about offensive presidential speech as no less a Lefty light than Rolling Stone in this defense of presidential vulgarity. However if you don’t feel like Rolling Stone’s your source of insight in these delicate matters, I can sum their article in a single sentence:

It’s ok when Democrats do it.”

I’m so unsympathetic to the Left’s rending of their clothes, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over Trump allegedly calling Haiti (and other 3rd world slums) a sh**hole. Indeed, most vulgarians would admit to the truth of what Trump said. Haiti is well and truly a sh**hole.

But, the larger question is this: exactly where do the offended left get off being offended by Trump’s vivid speech. Let’s dig into this, shall we? If you are so inclined, reflect on the picture to the right. Matt Walsh is on point when he tweets:

“The people who wear vagina costumes and call their opponents “teabaggers” are super offended by Trump’s vulgarity.

Mr. Walsh made three points in his Daily Wire piece, the first of which is the topic of this post. I quote:

The Left obviously is in no position to lecture anyone for “vulgar and offensive” language. These are the same people who spent eight years calling their political opponents “teabaggers.” “S***hole” is a PG-13 term. “Teabagger” is X-rated. It’s also a personal attack on actual people1)mtp: from Wiktionary, a teabagger is A person who practices teabagging, i.e., the sexual act of inserting the scrotum into someone’s mouth. (neologism, often derogatory) An affiliate of the Tea Party movement, or a supporter of its protests and/or ideology., as opposed to an attack on the general conditions of a country. And let’s not forget the time they donned vagina hats and marched through the streets with signs referring rather explicitly to their “p*ssies.” I could go on at great length citing examples of the gleeful vulgarity that has spewed from the mouths of the people now so scandalized by the “s” word.

I’ve seen many on the Left lament that Trump has “coarsened the culture” to such an extent that our children can’t even watch the news anymore. A reporter for the Washington Post worried that “s***hole” will be “all over the schoolyard tomorrow” because our kids will have learned of the term, for the first time, from Donald Trump.

I agree that the culture is too coarse and our children are too exposed to it. But “s**t” is the least of our problems, I’m afraid to say. Your child is far more scandalized by the pop songs you let her listen to all day than she is by the words the president uses in a closed door meeting at the White House. Yet if I were to point out that pop music is inappropriate, you’d scoff at me and call me a Puritan. Something doesn’t add up here.

Is it true that Trump has coarsened our language? Actually, the problem as I see it is the delicate sensibilities of all of us. Our discourse actually begin its slide to the gutters with the degenerates (mostly women) who defended Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior. One of the great questions of those times was whether young children should be permitted to watch the news. But it was too late. Children came to learn that oral sex doesn’t count, cigars can be put to creative uses, dress stains are not always from spilled soup.

The English word ‘vulgar’ is a Latin word meaning ‘common’ or “pertaining to ordinary people“. This is an appellation that Trump embraces because, despite his station in life, he speaks like and connects to the vulgar people – the bus driver. The plumbers. The framers and rockers who built our house. The Nascar fans. Is it any wonder that Trump’s support among adult, black males has soared to 40%? and all the people who, as Obama claimed,  “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion“. These are the vulgar people and they are the people who elected Trump.

American Sh**holes

Ironically, it is the vulgar people for whom the Democrats allegedly care. But, by their words and deeds seek the approval not of the working class. They ache to be validated and supported by the community of the swells – the downtown limousine liberals, the tweedy college professors, Hollywood’s A-list.

Compared to the invective thrown at Trump (and his Republican predecessor, G.W. Bush) the term sh**hole is mild at best. It’s the kind of phraseology the vulgar among us use to describe downtown Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago’s South Side, New York City’s projects, Washington’s D.C’s  Murder Bay … indeed, any of the slums that decorate the urban centers Democrats have controlled for years. The Democrats (and similarly disconnected  Republicans) are deeply offended that Trump called Haiti a sh**hole. Well, here’s a flash: Haiti is a sh**hole. So is Venuzuela. So are the squatter areas of the Philippines, the Favelas of Brazil, as is the Villa Miseria of Argentina. No wonder Democrats take such offense. It’s as if Trump was criticizing them or something.

But I wander. The point is that Trump calls it as he sees it and how he describes what he sees is surely course and unmannered. But it’s exactly the argot of the vulgar and it connects.



Footnotes   [ + ]

Posted in Democrat Party, Ethics and Morality, Leftism, Personal, Politics, Pop Culture | Leave a comment

Is The Left Ignorant of Conservatism?


Here is a Facebook quote from a dear Lefty friend of mine which merits a reply requiring more depth than is easily supplied in a Facebook comment

I thought the conservatives on the right were all for law and order – federal and state and local. What is ‘funny’ is for the state’s rights agenda of the right suddenly isn’t so important. If you really believe that states should have significant autonomy in a federal system, then I would think that these actions by the justice department are a violation of that belief.

This response is to a comment I made that decried the Left’s caterwaling about AG Sessions reversing President Obama’s regulation that allowed (illegally, I might add) the executive to ignore existing Federal law vis marijuana. The comment is illuminating in that it demonstrates the Left’s confusing understanding of political philosophy and the importance of law to the right ordering of a nation’s institutions and civil society. So, here’s my extended response:

You thought wrong on two counts. You continue to remain ignorant of basic political philosophy and second you do not understand the context of “law and order”. I shall begin what is largely a sysyphian task of helping you better understand these two important concepts and why conservation of liberty is not possible unless Law is applied equally and with the consent of the governed.

What is a conservative?

The term conservative is a relatively new in political discourse. Today’s conservatives were historically called classical liberals1)a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to libertarianism and to economic liberalism,[1][2] it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism[6] and progress – see here – so called because they favored liberty over equality. In every case, where liberty and equality come into conflict, the classical liberal (a.k.a the contemporary conservative) favors freedom and recognizes the truth of F.A. Hayak’s understanding,

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time

I am conservative because my impulse is to conserve liberty.

Law and Order

Political philosophy is not black and white, a concept you seem not to understand. Law and order is beloved by conservatives (e.g., John Locke) because its moral implementation protects the rights of the individual when applied equally to all. Laws, by definition and construction, always constitute a restriction of liberty. Thus the only acceptable laws are those that (1) are necessary for the right ordering of civil society and its institutions and (2) are applied equally to all.

Now, back to your misguided understanding quoted above. The supremacy of federal law over state is enshrined in the constitution and, for all practical purposes, cannot be eliminated. Thus, the next choice is to eliminate the federal statute that prohibits states to determine how marijuana is to be regulated. Many conservatives (and most libertarians) would support repeal of the federal law prohibiting marijuana, but until such time as congress acts to repeal the law, Attorney General Sessions has no choice but to enforce it.

Footnotes   [ + ]

Posted in Economic, Leftism, Philosophy, Political, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Obama, Narcissism, and the Triumph of Emotion

We begin with what formet British PM David Cameron thought of Obama’s Narcissism and its real-world consequences:

Steve Hilton, one of Cameron’s closest advisers before the pair fell out over immigration and Brexit last year, made the comments during the latest instalment of his show, The Next Revolution, on Fox News.

Discussing Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury, Hilton said any claims by elitists and the establishment that Donald Trump was mentally unfit for the presidency came second to Trump’s promotion of a pro-worker, populist agenda on immigration, infrastructure, trade and the fight against China.

He went on to emphasise the shortcomings of Trump’s predecessors, adding: “My old boss, former British prime minister David Cameron, thought Obama was one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed people he’d ever dealt with.

“Obama never listened to anyone, always thought he was smarter than every expert in the room, and treated every meeting as an opportunity to lecture everyone else. This led to real-world disasters, like Syria and the rise of Isis.”

But the real world did not matter to the elites, Hilton said. “For them, it’s all about style and tone, not substance and results. Donald Trump offends the elites aesthetically, like a piece of art that’s not to their taste.

Speaking of elitism and the values by which they judge others, there’s this OpEd in the American Interest: “An Emotional America”

Americans on average have been paying more attention to emotions as a guide for their judgments, and the result has been to make the national discourse even more fraught with complexity. Admittedly, at one level, to speak of an excess of emotionality might seem like a no-brainer, as we note the easily derided emotional sensitivities of the “snowflakes” on the Left or the intriguing mixture of fear and anger in Trumpland. But the issue deserves more careful attention. We need to sort out the trends with greater precision, and to note some revealing selectivity in the emotions most commonly indulged.5

My overall contention here is this: that growing individualism, with its increasing focus on self-expression, is facilitating the expression of a widening array of emotions, creating a sense that emotional construction is becoming a genuine reality in its own right; and that this impulse is affecting both sides of the political spectrum. Other developments have shaped this trend as well—from increasingly emotional newscasts to a growing acceptance of the language of therapy in everyday discourse.

The Left is largely defined by emotion and prioritizes feelings above truth. Style and tone are everything to a Lefty. In Lefty discourse it is enough to tug the heartstrings and leave substance and results and foundational principles unspoken. Emotion is the root of Obama’s narcissism and of Oprah’s “your truth” over “the truth” relativism. The Left’s love of emotion is behind their inability to contemplate ideas that do not comport with, nor satisfy their emotional needs.

It’s amazing to me the number of highly educated people (think of college professors) whose reasoning is stupidified by emotion. As I’ve said many times, education has nothing to do with wisdom – something Aristotle understood.

But there is a lesson to be learned and that lesson is exactly this: To persuade a Leftist of the moral value of your policy, simply broadcast a meme on Facebook showing starving Sudanese babies or shivering puppies to make the claim that those who oppose your policy support the images portrayed in the picture.



Posted in Leftism, Philosophy, Political | Leave a comment

So Much Winning

Five major American corporations announced major investments as a result of the tax package passed today.

Boeing announces $300M in Charitable and Business Initiatives as a consequence of the tax package passage today. Similarly Comcast, WellsFargo, AT&T, Bancorp

AT&T announced that once President Donald Trump signed the bill into law that they would “invest an additional $1 billion in the United States in 2018 and pay a special $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 AT&T U.S. employees.” AT&T further noted that if Trump signed the bill before Christmas that the company will receive the bonus over the holidays.

The network spending of Internet providers has become a hotly contested issue in recent years as broadband companies such as AT&T and Comcast blamed a relative decline in spending on the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Those rules were repealed last week by a 3-to-2 vote at the agency, in a move that would allow providers to speed up some websites, slow down others or charge some sites new fees.

Fifth Third Bancorp, a bank headquartered in Ohio, announced that they would raise the minimum hourly wage for all employees to $15 following the tax reform bill and would give a one-time bonus of $1,000 to more than 13,500 of its employees.

Wells Fargo announced that they will increase their minimum hourly pay rate to $15, and will “aim for $400M in philanthropic donations next year due to the newly-passed GOP tax bill.”


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment