Category Archives: Political Philosophy

Updated: Palin Gives Up Governorship ('Only Dead Fish Go With The Flow')

Media, Military, Political Philosophy, Politics, Sarah Palin

I’m glad I waited a few hours pursuant to the announcements on cable that Sarah Palin had resigned, before posting this. For that is how long it has taken to get the truth from the horse’s mouth. To listen to David Shyster of MSNBC, with his version of news, you’d think Palin was leaving politics. This was the crawl caption plastered below Shuster’s facetious face:

Palin Leaving politics for good.

A bit of wishful thinking.

The same odious character was quick to conduct the ubiquitous interviews with Palin’s Alaskan GOP rivals. You see, beamed Shyster, a lot of sensible Republicans believe Palin lacks gravitas (something Barney Frank oozes).

Why my prudent wait? For the first few hours following the announcement, the cable culprits failed to screen Palin’s brief press conference announcing her resignation. When they finally did, the short resignation speech was truncated, and only the incoherent parts excerpted, as Anderson Cooper pulled ugly faces, and his colleague Candy Crowley feigned horror.

Why?

Our faux journalists and their producers are quite capable of screening and re-screening clips they like at a rate that would drive the placid Dalai Lama to a homicidal rage.

Granted, Palin, as I have said before, doesn’t know when to stop rambling. That much is true. But her announcement was, for the better part, perfectly coherent and even inspired in places (hell, anyone who favorably mentions the Tenth Amendment and States’ Rights inspires me, if only fleetingly).

Here it is. Decide for yourselves.

Update (July 4): To those on whom distinctions, made in plain English, are lost, this post, of course, is a critique of the coverage of the Palin resignation, not an endorsement of the woman’s political plank, an impossibility for this classical liberal.

For more on Palin—her empty homilies to our dead-as-a-doornail Constitution, her profoundly feminist, mod approach to her daughter’s foray into siring a (poor) bastard baby, her promises to erect unconstitutional government departments to serve the retarded, her whooping it up for equally unconstitutional, immoral wars, her selling her soul by soaking up McMussolini’s creed; on-and-on—all in the Sarah Palin archive, on your right.

Did she display promise? Of course. You’d have to be an idiot, or an envy-riddled female, or both, not to recognize her Reaganesque charisma (although he served as governor for 9 years, no quitting). But she has shown no learning curve.

Take this bit from her resignation speech:

“…this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for our freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that life is short so they choose to not waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than self… and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and not this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.”

[SNIP]

I mean, what on earth are we still doing in Kosovo, and how does that relate to “freedom” here at home, the proper purview of a constitutional government?! This Bush-era neocon nonsense I do not miss. As for the “military” being so much better than the rest of us, to quote, “I confess to growing as sick-and-tired of the odes to the military in militarized America, as I have of the constant fretting over the toll stratospheric state debt will take on ‘our children.’ (What about all us stiffed working stiffs?) About the country’s under-educated, over-indulged, hyper-sexed, super-confident kids I don’t care. (I’m confident the homeschooled among them will survive on this road to serfdom.) The military is certainly no more deserving than the rest of us…”

Update II: The Din For Democracy

Affirmative Action, Democracy, IMMIGRATION, Iraq, Multiculturalism, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, South-Africa

After visiting South Africa, Eli Kedourie, “noted student of nationalism,” wrote in the South Africa International:

“If majority and minority are perpetual, then government ceases to have a mediatory or remedial function, and becomes an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by the majority. … The worst effects of the tyranny of the majority are seen when parliamentary government on the unalloyed Westminster model is introduced into countries divided by religion or language or race. Such for example was the case of Iraq … where an extremely heterogeneous society came to be endowed with constitutions which made no provision for diversity, and where the result was tyranny of one groups over the other groups in the society.”

Kedourie was not the only sensible scholar who pointed out the obvious. But that’s history—South Africa is history.

Why are such voices not heeded today? America’s make-up is changing. Through mass immigration, it too is moving toward becoming a racially and ethnically stratified country, in which democracy will be ever ruthlessly wielded as a weapon of the usurping majority. Yet the din for democracy grows among the conservative and neoconservative cadre.

From “Exporting Democracy”:

Political democracy on the other hand, is a “leftist” idea. Why? Because it inevitably leads to a massive consolidation of power, centralized especially in the national government.

Democracy, like leftism, is un-American. It is, in fact, a foreign pollutant that wafted over the Atlantic from the French Revolution. And like a wild weed, it took root in the republic’s soil, growing out of control.

Update I (July 2): The post addresses a specific aspect that makes democratic mass-society unworkable. The premise of Mr. Kraus, hereunder, is that all cultures are equally prone to the principles of the Enlightenment. Nothing a little show of Western pride won’t fix. I vehemently disagree. The historical population of America is becoming progressively more ignorant of the principles of freedom by the day. But dissolving the American people and electing another—which is what America’s centrally planned immigration policy aims at—will ensure freedom is never revived, as immigration policies privilege Third World immigrants. Please refer to my immigration archive. Democracy, for what it’s worth, works in small, relatively homogeneous societies, like Denmark (although that country too is becoming too riven by religious and racial strife to work).

Update II: Mr. Kraus, there is nothing “unorganized” about the “multicultural noise machine.” Identity politics is highly organized and emasculating. If the latest affirmative action case tells you anything it is that by nature, the Anglo-American WASP tends to go quietly into that good night. He is expected to so do. (In fact, others of their ilk on this blog have reprimanded Ricci for daring to seek redress, instead of doing what WASPS do; hunker down and get used to losing.)
Empires have been decimated by the barbarians from within and without. You can’t do much about your own barbarians, except try and educate them. But why import more?

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’

Constitution, Law, Political Philosophy, The Courts

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’
By Barbara Grant

What does it mean, “to bork”? Readers too young to recall the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings on Robert Bork’s nomination as Supreme Court Justice might refer to this piece in which Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and calls her nomination a “bad mistake.”

To “bork” a nominee means to block him (or her) from appointment to public office. Bork avers that President Barack Obama’s standard of “empathy” in judge selection bodes ill for the selection of a justice who supports constitutional principles. He notes that “wise Latina” Sotomayor has less than a stellar record in her judicial opinions, and is in fact noted for bullying from the bench. However, he also offers that she will likely not be “any worse than some recent white male appointees.”

Bork calls himself an originalist, which means that he tries to interpret the Constitution in the manner it was drafted, at all times seeking first principles. This is different from the “judicial activism” principle currently held by many, in which justices twist the document to conform to preconceived political stances.

Robert Bork is adamantly opposed to twisting the Constitution; he also believes his opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds was pivotal to his nomination’s rejection.

Where does the current trend toward “empathy” leave a highly principled man like Robert Bork? Still interested in the Constitution, but also wary of our justices’ decisions. “If you want to know what the constitution means, you will not learn it from the court,” he said.

BAB Contributor Barbara Grant is a consultant in electro-optical engineering and co-author of “The Art of Radiometry,” a forthcoming book on the measurement of light, to be published by SPIE PressB.

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick 'A Bad Mistake'

Constitution, Law, Political Philosophy, The Courts

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’
By Barbara Grant

Robert Bork is adamantly opposed to twisting the Constitution; he also believes his opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds was pivotal to his nomination’s rejection.