Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

11/22/2010 (11:24 am)

How To Talk To Progressives — Every Time

Thank God for Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey. Seriously. He is providing the model for dealing with Progressives that we’ve needed for so long. This is outstanding. Four minutes and change. Listen:

“You can come and talk to me when he’s out of his job, and not one minute before.” Christie simply rejects out of hand the incredible double standard which these evil human beings take for granted. And make no mistake, Progressives are evil, but a very common, familiar sort of evil: they’re rebellious children grown to adult size. Just like when dealing with children, they cannot be permitted to benefit from their tantrums, their manipulations, or their lies, ever. They need to be handled with firmness and made to pay for their excesses, or else they get no dinner.

We’ve actually seen this approach work before. We saw Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn resist the Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) after telling the truth about Islam’s conflict with Western-style liberty, and win. The result was the dismantling of the Progressive Kangaroo Court that was the HRC. And let’s not forget how the Progressives responded to voters telling them “No” over Obama’s Health Care Thuggery. When you grow a spine and get in their face properly, they have nothing much to say. Like spoiled children, they’re all noise but lack the ability to follow through. The illegal shenanigans that they employed to get ObamaCare past the Congress demonstrate that you have to be vigilant about taking away Plan B. But there’s no payoff to cooperating with their games.

Remember, when dealing with a Progressive, that they do not actually believe anything they tell you about what’s right and wrong; they only use moral speech when they want to use guilt to control you. Ignore them, and decide using whatever moral guidelines you usually use. You do not have to get angry, although it probably won’t hurt much if you do (especially if they’re already angry.) The rule is, never accept the lies they’re telling you “for the sake of civility,” treat them the way you would treat an angry teenager: tell the unvarnished truth without apology (especially the truth about what they’re doing), stick to your principles, insist firmly that they act responsibly, and never give in.

The similarity between the approach that works with naughty children and the approach that works with Progressives suggests that the cause of Progressivism is improper parenting, parenting without sufficient backbone. Ultimately the downfall of the West has been that we’ve let our children get out of hand. I’m guessing that we would find something similar in the demise of any major civilization. Affluence seems to make parents soft. It is a lesson we should never forget.

I would love to see Christie run for President, but honestly, I think we should let him finish his term in New Jersey to show the nation what needs to be done. The man is priceless.

12/30/2009 (11:24 am)

Democrats Feign TSA Outrage

The latest in the endless string of disingenuous Democratic posturings involves Senate Democrats huffing and puffing over Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R, SC) objection to confirming Errol Southers to be Director of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) by acclamation. They’re predictably getting help from the press: McClatchy newspapers and Huffington Post ran a story on Dec 28 entitled “Who’s Running the TSA? No one, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint.” It’s a lie — there is an acting Director named Gale Rossides — but it’s an attack.

So let’s put the whole affair in perspective, shall we?

It’s Dec 30, 2009. The President has been President since Jan 21, 2009. There has not been a permanent head of TSA for almost a full year… and yet, McClatchy and Co. are blaming Sen. Jim DeMint for that. Has DeMint been stalling the Senate for a full year? Of course not. It took President Obama 8 months even to nominate somebody to the position. It took a Senate committee 3 and a half months to vote him out of committee. De Mint raised a single objection, based on the nominee’s failure to commit to a position regarding collective bargaining.

But now, Sen. Harry Reid is complaining that DeMint is “politicizing” national security. The Democrats mosied along at a yawn-inducing pace for a full year, then a miscreant tried to bring down an airplane with a bomb in his underwear, and suddenly it’s imperative that we replace the acting TSA director with a permanent director right now. Who’s politicizing what, here? If this is not a knee-jerk, ass-covering impulse on Reid’s part, what is it? And what kind of person jumps into action and points the finger at others after a full year of inaction?

Democrats are holding a debate over how they can best respond to the Republicans over the Flight 253 incident. Not about how best to secure the nation, mind you… how best to answer Republicans. If there was ever a starker contrast between the parties, I don’t remember it. One party actually cares about stopping terrorists. The other cares about how it looks, and how to retain power. And predictably, the party that cares about how it looks, automatically accuses the other party of caring about how it looks — because that’s the only motive they’re capable of imagining, being caught in that narcissistic mode themselves. Classic projection.

One of my favorite quotes observes that “ego is the anesthetic provided by kindly Nature to ease the pain of being a damned fool.” I’m not sure who said it, but he must have been thinking of Democrats avoiding the fact that they are moral vacuums.

The real issue regarding the TSA appoinment appears to be over unionization. Current TSA regulations allow TSA employees to join a union, but does not permit the union to bargain for the employees. This regulation has been upheld by the first 5 directors of TSA. Sen. DeMint asked nominee Erroll Southers whether he was going to uphold that regulation as well, and did not receive an answer. He wants to know before he allows the man to step into the role; the Obama administration, ever union-friendly, has stated that it favors union bargaining for TSA. Harry Reid objects because DeMint would not allow the nomination to be accepted by acclamation, nor to go through without debating the collective bargaining issue, meaning that the Democrats have to go on record supporting it. They could have held this debate at any time during the past 12 months — if they felt that national security was more important than, say, federal funding of abortions, or scuttling auto dealerships that contributed to Republicans.

Meanwhile, perhaps we should ask anybody who’s been through a transit strike, a teacher’s strike, or a policeman’s strike, whether permitting collective bargaining for the nation’s anti-terrorist security gate-keepers might possibly affect airport security.