Category Archives: Ethics

Update III: Leading Paleoconservative Hails Her Hero (Warning; It's Not Pretty)

Addiction, Conservatism, Ethics, Free Will Vs. Determinism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Paleoconservatism, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

Bay Buchanan, who needs no introduction, has selected an heir and a hero. The choice says a lot about how low paleoconservatism has sunk; how traditionalists have adopted a liberal/therapeutic conception of bad character and conduct. If you do bad things, you’re not a rotter lacking in inhibitions and judgment; rather, you are sick, depressed, addicted. If anything, anyone who fails to recognize your heroism for suffering such afflictions–he (or she, in my case) is the real rotter.

This conceptual hangover conservatives share with liberals. Both factions are in the habit of deflecting from what mediates behavior: personality, probity, values, character or lack thereof. If someone goes off the rails, members of both these divisions will refuse to recognize a character flaw; they seldom make the individual the locus of control. More so than in politics, the reasons for the demise of conservatism and its convergence with liberalism ought to be sought in the adoption of this therapeutic conception of behavior—of wrongdoing, morality, and character.

In a tract that could have been written by Oprah Winfrey, Ms. Buchanan dissolves into a puddle of praise and apologetics for a young man who drank habitually, and, in a deluge of liquor “bumped into a black woman, called her a ‘nigger,’ and struck her in the head with an open hand.” Like all good politicians (or actors), Marcus Epstein quickly got religion on AA, “radically changed his life. … swore off drinking and started attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. He started treating the bipolar depression that had gone undiagnosed until that run-in with the law.” (Convenient timing)

Declares Ms. Buchanan: “Marcus Epstein is one of the bravest young people I have ever known.”

Wow! How many youngsters does Ms. Buchanan know? I suggest a visit to one of the country’s VA hospitals. Or to a military cemetery, where, engraved on tombstones Ms. Buchanan may discover a more traditional narrative of heroism.

Character, grit, a bit of a stiffer upper lip in the face of adversity; forget about it! “[A]fter this incident … I came to fully appreciate his finest qualities,” writes Ms. Buchanan. My sentiments exactly.

Ms. Buchanan, there are other traditionalists around with “exceptional minds, and a remarkable talent for writing,” who endured a lifetime of adversity. Some even hail from outside the American cocoon—from lands where real existential issues are confronted daily. Update III (June 16): As un-heroic and boring as it may seem, paleoconservatives such as Brother Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, Robert Stove and Thomas Fleming have never rolled around in the streets soused, swearing and smacking innocents (let alone women) on the head. In fact, whatever the reader may think of their opinions, these men are gentlemen; they embody grace under the tyranny of political correctness. A movement that produces such personalities should not elevate lesser men (or women).

You can tell a movement by its heroes.

As my Afrikaner male friends would say in an expression of disgust, “Sis, man” (Especially with reference to striking a woman.)

Update I: To be clear: My case rests not on the ins-and-outs of the legal spat and its merits, but on the character of the individual, and on the manner in which conservatives have taken to the therapeutic idiom like ducks to water—or like liberals (no need to insult the ducks).

Many of the people I know have held more radical views than Epstein for twice or thrice as long, but have never clashed with the law—not because they revere or even respect it; au contraire, but because of a conservative view of how you conduct yourself. Call it good, old-fashioned discipline.

The idea that you blame your failings on the Other Side or on a substance is … quintessentially liberal.

The left defends its “heroes”; we defend ours. Sadly, we do so based on the same, shared, faulty premise. That’s where we go wrong. The left was always wrong.

Update II: I’m all for forgiveness; but not the instant clemency Christianity offers these days. No sooner has someone offended than he is swept up in a wave of love. I’m not a Christian, so I have no clue as to whether Christian expiation was supposed to be a Federal Express easy ride.

A Jew can’t expect to get to the Pearly Gates if he does bad things. In Judaism, your actions determine your fate on earth and in the hereafter (the first being far more important than the last).

I don’t wish this debate to take on a theological bent; so don’t pursue this except in the narrow sense.

Doing the obligatory stuff to extricate yourself from a legal bind, including going into rehab—this does not count as atonement. Thus, it is wrong for Ms. Buchanan to get huffy over Epstein being dropped from law school, subsequent to the episode, as I understand it. A paleo mother Hen, as she is to Epstein, should accept that adversity will be character-building for her errant protege.

Update III: Lettermen/Palin: Dull Meets Dumb

Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics, Family, Feminism, Gender, Intelligence, John McCain, Pop-Culture, Republicans, Sarah Palin

I defended the woman effectively in “Sensational Sarah,” “Who’s Stupid? Not Sarah,” and “The Left’s Gallery of Cretins.” I did so mainly because her detractors were so much more odious and pretentious, and because I saw in Sarah Palin something, a spark. That glimmer has fizzled. Her philosophical ignorance was unaided by the trashy family dramas, played out in public; the interviews (and no, Bristol is NOT “a bright young woman,” despite what Mother says), the shrill inflection she has developed, the propensity to talk without stop in senseless, rambling, run-off sentences.

And now, in her “uprising” against Dave Lettermen—a veritable storm in a C-cup—Palin comes off as a cross between a less intelligent Gloria Steinem and that ding dong Carrie Prejean (who too refers to herself adoringly as a “bright, intelligent young woman”; I don’t think so). That “young woman” sobriquet is enough to trigger a conniption.

Update I (June 13): Palin has good instincts and a sinewy intelligence. She is, however, too ambitious for her own good, and has shown herself to be, unlike Ron Paul, “an easily co-opted politician, [who’ll abandon] her conservative core beliefs and restrain her political persona for a ticket and candidate that [had] neither: This [was] likely the reason for the mangled, mixed massages, absent from the governor’s Alaskan record.

Palin [also] slammed a cause she had, at one time, saluted: that of the Alaskan Independence Party. That she was once affiliated with said party speaks to her visceral feeling for freedom. That she has since denounced the IP, and seems to have imbibed no political philosophy to speak of since the McCain escapade, also speaks volumes.

However, don’t write her off yet. Where her expertise lie is in energy. She knows what she’s talking about. In a better world, Palin would know her weaknesses and cultivate her strengths. This would mean assuming control of the energy portfolio in a Ron Paul administration, just before he dismantles it.

Given her own boundless energy, Plain could also take charge of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, prior to Paul’s scattering of the critters and cretins who infest the place. As the real Diana, the goddess of the hunt, a Palin subservient to a Paul would allow men to kill and hunt wild life that encroaches on—and endanger—communities (like bears, etc).

Alas, Palin will not attach herself to Paul, because she possesses few enduring, important passions and principles, other than for retards: young women and disabled children.

When Palin runs again, she will cling to the most powerful ticket, or she will be That Ticket. She will then overreach, well beyond her ken. And she will absorb and emit the requisite statism.

Update II (June 14): A couple of Palin faithful have made little of the substance of my disappointment in the woman. Let me reiterate the point people are so willing to forget (frightening that). Put it this way: Do any of her fans remember the policies promoted by the man Palin supported blindly? Anyone recall the kind of mammoth government expansion “McMussolini” advocated? You need a refresher! This woman did not confine herself to yammering about a tiny Department for Retards. Perpetual war, anyone?
I gave Palin a great deal of support. I loved the way the sissy media televised images of her speaking against the backdrop of a man feeding turkeys into the grinder—the food liberals gladly eat, but never hunt or gut. But Palin showed zero conviction; she failed to defend her natural, unperturbed pose with an honest worker in the background. She apologized for who she is—a girl who has hunted, skinned, and then cooked what she kills, and who sees nothing wrong in that great, gory, picture-perfect prop (the slaughter of turkeys).
Palin allowed herself to be “handled.” And now, she’s jumping on some bandwagon that is bringing to her side feminists of the left-liberal and “conservative” ilk—the usual cows. Puke.

Update III: There is on BAB a Sarah Palin archive. To check it out, click Sarah Palin under Categories.

Not-So-Wise Latina

Debt, Ethics, Morality, The Courts

Sonia Sotomayor has a “fail” on FICO. Unless Barack has intervened, her credit score is probably abysmal. How “wise” can this Latina lady be if she’s financially reckless? Moreover, and with all the talk of her extraordinary empathic powers, The American Thinker wonders how Ms. Sotomayor will be capable of “empathizing” with “tens of millions of Americans who do have investments, 401Ks, and personal savings,” since “after so many years of highly paid professional work, [she] has no savings or investments”:

“Sotomayor’s annual earnings come to $196,000 a year ($170,000 a year as an appeals judge and $26,000 for part-time teaching). She has served as an appeals judge for 17 years. This service was preceded by lengthy tenure at a corporate law firm of Pavia and Harcourt, where she was a partner, and presumably was well compensated.

Yet after a career that has spanned 25 years, Ms Sotomayor only has one thousand dollars in net savings. As reported in the New York Post, Sotomayor’s bank account holds $31,985. Her credit cards debts are $15,823, and she has $15,000 in unpaid dental bills. That leaves her with $1,162. Sotomayor’s total assets, revealed as $708,068, consist almost entirely of equity in her Manhattan apartment. The judge’s financial filing does not disclose what percentage of this figure is unrealized gain, but it must be sizable. In other words, other than home equity, Ms Sotomayor is essentially broke.”

Update VI: Beware Of ‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy (& In Praise Of One Lunatic)

Classical Liberalism, Ethics, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Ron Paul

Update III: The excerpt is from my new column, now on Taki’s Magazine. I’m not even going to post the title the editor gave it. The attendant disclaimer reads: “This outrageous title is the product of the festering imagination of the editor, not the author.”
Update IV (June Eighth): Mr. Reavis did NOT approve of the poor column’s latest title, as you can see from the estimable Judge’s comment hereunder. Writers are pretty powerless in this respect.
Update V (June 9): The column’s title has, thankfully, been changed.

“About certain moral (and legal) matters, patriotic, freedom-loving Americans agree instinctively. For example:

When brave, border patrolmen Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean shot an illegal alien drug dealer in the derriere, they were defending their state, country and countrymen.

For hastening the descent into hell of two career criminals, who had broken into the country before breaking and entering at the home adjacent to his, Joe Horn—another fine Texan—is the best of neighbors.

Another acid test is the case of Frank Ricci, a firefighter from New Haven, Connecticut. Ricci was denied a promotion because he bested all the blacks in the department on a test 77 other candidates took. City officials didn’t like the results, so they voided the test, and put the promotion on hold until a less sensitive test could be developed—one that better screened-out proficiency and ability.

The individual with a healthy moral compass will agree that Ricci was wronged. What is licit or illicit in the natural law is inescapably obvious in the other vignettes as well.

But not to libertarian deviationists (by which I mean deviants, as opposed to dissenters).” …

The complete column, previously “Beware Of ‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy,” is now on Taki’s, differently titled by the editor.

Which is where you can find it every week. Miss the weekly column on WND? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine, every Saturday.

Update (June 6):In Praise Of One Lunatic. The “KNAPPSTER,” Tom Knapp, and I have had a fractious exchange in the Comments Section. I’ve posted two of Tom’s comments, starting with a highly unpleasant post, aimed at my person. Not unpredictably, Tom was most injured by my correct claim that his newsletter, which I dubbed a libertarian organ, and which I read regularly for its news items (not its commentary), has not featured my column in years.

Somewhat disingenuously, Tom disagreed, posting a list of my blog posts and columns on his site, claiming they were featured recently in the newsletter he mails out to thousands of libertarians.

(This was followed by an ugly personal note, calling me a liar, but I will not be dragged down by purveyors of smut.)

Now, I know and remember everything I’ve ever written. Check the dates on these posts; they are all old, exactly as I asserted. I repeat: These are all older column and blog posts.

The most recent entry is from 2006 (three from 2007, although “Tasers R Us” has vanished from the list; Don’t Tase Me Big Bro,” which I would have thought Tom would love, never made it onto the list, as far as I can tell).

Here are the dates of each individual post on the Rational Review’s newsletter: 11.16.05, 06.22.06, 09/11/06, 06.11.07, 11.16.05, 11.27.06, 12.04.06, 08.24.06, 11.20.06, 06.28.06, 06.28.06, 03.28.06, 03.15.06, 09.04.06, 12.23.05, 03.22.06, 10.19.06, 08.07.06, 01.31.06, 05.23.06, 10.28.05, 09.27.06, 03.06.06, 02.08.06, 01.17.07, 07.02.07, 09.06.06, 01.20.06, 04.25.06, 12.11.06, 12.20.06.

It’s a shame, because I’ve said things in the cause of freedom—my cause and Tom’s cause—few libertarians have dared to (and better).

Just two Examples:

1) My hardcore propertarian defense of Michael Vick (other libertarian dog lovers offered a watered-down, states’-rights defense. Sean Hannity could not find a defense such as mine, which is how I made it onto his radio show on that rare occasion).

2) They’re Coming For Your Kids”

Now, in his defense (I try and be immutably fair; although Tom is fighting dirty these days), the KNAPPSTER I once knew is quite a rare creature among libertarian cults. He has always appreciated contrarians and the vitality they bring to the movement. Rare. Like mainstreamers, libertarians spend a lot of time huddling in their purist corners, enforcing party lines, following a Cult Leader, and peering at the contrarian from behind heavily fortified ideological parapets.

Again: The KNAPPSTER I knew was not like this. Yes, he got heated about his perspective, but he never barred mine.

On the other hand, libertarian women folk can be real Stalinists in their approach to someone like myself. Last I was kicked off a distribution list it was by one such Siren of intolerance.

I am hopeful that some positive has come from this over-heated exchange, and that Tom, who doesn’t appreciate being perceived by readers (on this humble forum) as less than open-minded, will feature my column on his informative newsletter. He has not done so for a few years, as you can see from the dates the columns and post carry.

In that spirit, I’d also like to credit the KNAPSTER I knew (I do hope his women folk, and here I include women with the YY chromosomal makeup, have not gotten to him on this front) with being unique among (lower case L) libertarian anarchists in advancing one of the most cogent defenses of Israel. (I hope he will send me a link to that splendid tract.)

Peace (and give us a smile, KNAPPSTER).

Update II: Here is “Context is everything: American libertarians and Israel, part 1,” forwarded by Tom.

The KNAPPSTER, I believe, is cracking a grin. We’re good again.

Update VI (May 26): Postscript. I’ve been collegial and fair to a fault in my dealings with one Thomas L. Knapp, who has not carried any of my columns in his “newsletter” since this exchange—despite saying he would. My integrity tends to bring out the best in otherwise innately nasty pieces of work. In the case of this individual, my ability to elevate worked fleetingly—only while he was exposed to it during the exchange on this blog.