Molon Labe
Montani Semper Liberi
Para Fides Paternae Patria

Monday, March 19, 2012

From the esteemed Sarah Hoyt, via Instapundit.

The war between the genders is largely the war on men by feminazis, and the only winner is government.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

And an excellent thing it is, too.

The belief in catastrophic human caused global warming continues to die an inglorious death.

Too bad Romney has not, to my knowledge, even made any dismissive noises about his onetime (still?) belief in CAGW. Maybe it was only really a belief in the money to be made arbitraging carbon?
On the inadvisability of "social justice".

Social justice is not possible, social injustice is not possible. Everything which is just or unjust is so because it done to an individual by an individual.
It's a quick link, worth the click.

The real nature of the greens.

"Deep ecologists" delenda est.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

The absurdity of supporting Mitt Romney.

It was responding to that post which seems to have gotten me banned by Roger Simon.

Mr. Simon first makes an appeal to the supposed authority of the psychological arts to give an undeserved gleam of intellectual rigor to his post.

Mr. Simon claims that repetition by Romney that he will repeal Obamacare means he really means it, what's more he seems to be implying that Mitt means by that what most of Obamacare's opponents mean by that--that's is all just gone. However, he wants us to believe that Romney's equally repeated praises of Romneycare mean nothing. That there is no significance to Romney's having personally created and first made law some of Obamacare's worst aspects, which are all things Mitt Romney still says is a wonderful package of laws which do just what he says they do.

He takes a Michael Walsh to task for his taking issue with Romney's characterization of Obama as being in over his head, and Roger manages to pull even with reality in saying it can be both true that Obama is in over his head and that he is a radical bent on transforming society--I do stipulate, both can simultaneously be true. It is not evidence of derangement, however, to emphasize one over the other.

It is also not evidence of derangement to observe the reality that the existence of Romneycare--authored, claimed, and owned by the nominally Republican Romney--gave great political cover and even exact ideas on how to do it (the nationalization of medicine) to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. It is no example of derangement to note that.

He asks why we pick on Romney?

Because of the four people most responsible for Obamacare, Mitt Romney is among them? Seems like a good reason to me.

He then employs misdirection, and fairly naked misdirection at that. He claims Romney's success at Bain Capital means he cannot be a Marxist. No one (not I and I think no one) is saying his actions at Bain Capital makes him a Marxist.

His worst actions in the Massachusetts government do.

Roger Simon then goes on to appeal again to the mystic inerrant arts of psychology, and he speaks of projection.
"No, something else is going on. Feelings are being projected onto Romney, angry feelings. And these feelings are heightened by the fact that the ideological differences between the three leading candidates are relatively minor. The importance of personality has been increased out of all proportion."
I don't know that any of the the three candidates still in the race approved of Obamacare before the fact except for Romney, and Obamacare is drastically bad. Romney likes the idea, it is a wonderment why he would promise to repeal and in fact mean it, when plainly he approves of it in principle. If all it was was forcing freeloaders to pay for or towards their medical care, it might even be a "conservative" plan. That's not what Obamacare or Romneycare have been doing.

Neither Romney or Newt nor Paul, I think, would bother to find it necessary to distract the country from it's real problems by fighting internet porn, as Santorum has said he will do. He really thinks its a big deal--this does not reflect minor differences in worldview between say, he and Paul.

And then he goes on to say all the candidates are among the elites except for Cain. In a narrow fashion, that may be true--although I expect Bachmann is not well thought of at Yale or Harvard either one. I think he means to say criticism of Romney based on his being one of the "elites", is misplaced in it's concentration on Mitt.

This would be the case if all the remaining candidates were equally supported by righty talking heads and other personages in the GOP upper ranks. Instead, one is, and quite preferentially so. It's Mitt.

He's been adopted. No smoke filled room required, he chose to run, they chose him.

That's a big reason he needs to go down. It'll piss off all the right people.

People who need to be disappointed.

He also makes a paen to the legitimacy of a governing elite as a concept. He lumps together
"generals, governors, senators, an occasional congressman"
as an elite, and that we should respect their experience.

If such are the elite, why then they must be judged by the results of their efforts. TARP. Bailouts. I still don't have a tax return that fits on a postcard, and we don't have a flat tax. Social Security is what it is. Still.

If it is Mitt's fate to be judged as wanting because the like of Coulter have praised him, well he hasn't run from them either, has he?

I don't hate Mitt, I just very desperately don't want him to be President.

Because like Obama, he doesn't know what government should not try to do.
I may have been blocked by Roger Simon at PJMedia for the crime of steadfastly opposing Mitt Romney, while also being no more rude about it than needful.

I have been attempting to respond to a post here:

59. Tom Perkins

“The Santorum people hate Romney because he is rich and educated and somewhat stiff and mannerly.”

Perhaps instead it’s because he’s the nominee chosen by people who have much to answer for. The GOP establishment is very nearly as much at fault for the nation’s straights as the Democrats.

They have no credit with which to be declaring their chosen guy inevitable.
March 17, 2012 - 3:05 pm Link to this Comment | Reply

In response, A. N. Pierson writes:

Oh, please. I have been reading your endless comments on here with some amusement, but this one is beyond the beyond.

Romney is “chosen” by some establishment? What planet do you live on? Romney chose himself. He wants to be president and has for many years. He ran in 2008 when conservative loved him against McCain. No back room crew is choosing Romney. Get over your paranoid frothings and go spend your day with your family or something. You are one of the biggest nitwits I have ever read on here.


My response follows.

Angelo Codevilla has been mentioned above, in #58.

I'll quote him here.

"Because, in the long run, the country class will not support a party as conflicted as today's Republicans, those Republican politicians who really want to represent it will either reform the party in an unmistakable manner, or start a new one as Whigs like Abraham Lincoln started the Republican Party in the 1850s."

Now I'd hate to think I've been blocked for being too effective an opponent of Roger Simon's chosen candidate, but I haven't seen too many of my posts show up in quite a while. I'll make this one more attempt today. Responding here to A.N. Pierson., who so politely replied to my post #59.

Of course Romney chose himself first. I have never imagined nor written anything else. Then others chose him to be the inevitable candidate.

It is their defeat in an unmistakeable manner which is vital to the good future of the party and country.

One other thing, I don't remember liking Romney over McCain.

Mr. Pierson, you're talking about someone else. And making things up.

And Art Chance has decided to go full froth as well.

"First, Tom, you’ve become tiresome; you’re an ignorant, arrogant ass who thinks that just following every poster with some bullying, name-calling post is somehow persuasive, or at least makes you look like a big man. You’re not; you’re an ignorant, arrogant, bullying ass."

My reply:

Who's bullying who? I see the Rombots calling me anything and everything including an Obama troll. I see Roger Simon claiming I must be deranged.

I am trying to see to it that every vaguely substantive or risible pro-Romney post gets answered at least once with a countervailing point of view. There's nothing bullying in that. I suppose it might be tiresome to be asked to back up what you say when you expect to skate--to have your way over your betters. C'est la vie.

What ticks you off so much about two-thirds of the party insisting the GOP nominee be someone who actually represents them?
And you want to burn Codevilla's book? Nice. Try refuting it.

Art, I suggest you are too close to the trees to see the forest.