You Might Think Such a Thing Wouldn’t Matter at All

Before I get started here, I just want to make one thing absolutely clear: A huge chunk of Dr. Seuss’s works should be in the public domain. Titles such as The Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and even the now infamous six titles that Dr. Seuss Enterprises has decided to stop publishing rightfully belong to all of us. If not for the constant lengthening of the copyright term both in the United States and abroad, we’d have a functioning public domain that would render much of the “cancel culture” nonsense moot.

That doesn’t just mean that people would be free to print and publish problematic books they like. That also means people could freely remix problematic art, expurgating offensive images and words or scaling them up to point out the ugly yet commonplace bits of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. that is threaded throughout our culture.

I Do Not Like Them, Sam I Am

• 

I remember the Amy Grant boycotts. Not so much Sandy Patty, but our household was definitely an Amy Grant household. We were also Nazarenes when I was growing up, and Grant’s penchant for blue jeans, makeup and jewelry was often a sore subject for some of the more Pentacostal-leaning members of the church.

The more recent boycotts of Disney and Procter & Gamble were homophobic in nature (although there was a Satanic Panic boycott of P&G back in the 80s). I definitely remember rolling my eyes at these boycotts. Like the much more recent #CancelDisneyPlus caterwauling over the firing of Gina Carano, it’s awful hard to effectively boycott something that is as ubiquitous in your life as Star Wars, Mickey Mouse, or Crest toothpaste.

No, if you really want to put the screws to someone or something you don’t like, why stop at just not buying it yourself? You need to make sure that no one else can ever buy it. And that is the difference between boycotting and cancel culture. Commentary like @cmatchell’s is disingenuous at best.

At worst, it’s ignorant. It’s essentially a “tu quoque” fallacy, and you see it all around these days. I like to call it a “goose and gander” argument. Goose and gander arguments are often apples and oranges comparisons. You only get to a goose and gander argument by strawmanning and grossly oversimplifying the issues at hand. Popular examples include:

• If you’re a liberal pro-choicer who believes “My body, my choice,” you’re a hypocrite for supporting mandatory vaccination
• If you’re a conservative who’s pro-life, you’re a hypocrite for supporting the death penalty
• If you believe a Christian baker should sell a cake to a same-sex couple, you should also believe that Twitter ought to provide a platform for inciting violence
• If you think BLM protests are a good thing, you should also be onboard with an attempted insurrection at the Capitol Building in an attempt to overthrow the results of a democratic election

Setting aside the boycott/cancel distinction, is @cmatchell saying that Christians were correct to “cancel” Sandy Patty, Amy Grant, Disney, and Proctor & Gamble? Or is she admitting that cancel culture is wrong because the Christians did it?

Pack Up Those Things and You Take Them Away!

Dr. Seuss Enterprises is perfectly within their rights to remove a book from publication. But if you really want to disappear the books, you need to remove them from reseller platforms like eBay and Amazon. You need to remove them from libraries. You need to remove Seuss’s name from the national Read a Book Day that shares his birthday.

The decision to memory hole six (relatively) unpopular titles, if anything, feels like propitiation. Old Testament propitiation. As in, a sacrifice made to appease the gods and keep them from eating you. Or, in the case of Seuss, to keep an angry and vengeful mob from eating the Sneetches or the Cat in the Hat. Didn’t you know that the academic study that started this whole thing specifically calls out the Sneetches for not being sufficiently anti-racist and accuses the Cat of being a stand-in for blackface minstrelsy?

Something of note in all this:

They made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of those six books. They knew this day was coming, and they prepared for it. For those who are concerned about where Cancel Culture might lead, we’re already there.

This is beyond a chilling effect. Here we have, I believe, the first real example of a media company readying a sacrifice to the mobs. How many other media companies or personalities have already picked out their sacrificial scapegoats? What does this do the culture at large?

And to Think That I Saw It on Twitter

The world has moved on since I started picking away at this blog entry a week and a half ago. Pepe Le Pew came under fire for “adding to rape culture.” (Because what young man hasn’t taken romantic cues from a cartoon skunk that keeps getting shut down?) Trying to keep up with the outrage du jour is exhausting, and I think that’s part of the point. To overwhelm the culture at large. To wear us out so we just stop struggling and go along with the program.

It’s a bit ironic when you think about it, but the critical theory-types are essentially colonialists; missionaries who are forcing their version of civility on us poor ignorant savages, encouraging us to give up our heathen traditions in favor of their anointed imports and overlays. The more recent converts to this religion are of course the most devout. And like any religion during a crusade, the ends justify the means.

Rush is Wrong

I started Impolite Topics as a way to divorce my political and religious ramblings from other, more interesting stuff (e.g. posts about live entertainment, puppetry, burlesque–stuff that really matters). I moved a bunch of older posts over here, but I seem to have missed a couple. I’ll be adding those in the coming weeks.

This is a post I wrote on November 11th, 2012, when we lived in Los Angeles. In light of Rush Limbaugh’s recent passing, I felt it was worth revisiting.

🛒

After dropping my lovely and talented wife off at LAX this morning, I indulged in one of my guilty pleasures: talk radio. The wife hates talk radio because she is intelligent. I can only tune in when I’m tooling around by myself. I flip around — KPCC, KPFK — and then off to the dark recesses of the AM dial with KFI, KABC, and The Answer. This morning, I landed on Rush Limbaugh, and boy howdy…

Limbaugh played a couple of clips from Ron Paul’s farewell address, and managed to completely miss the point in a fashion so spectacular, it was as if he were simultaneously channeling Ed Anger and Emily Litella.

Ron Paul clip #1:

I thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a solution have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is, the principle that protects all personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace, it should be an easy sell. Yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely, if ever, fulfilled.

Rush’s response: “We are the party of liberty. We are the essence of liberty and freedom. That’s what it’s all about.” Then why did your party play dirty pool at the convention, Rush? Why did you guys dick around the brightest burning torch for liberty the Republican Party has seen since Barry Goldwater? Why did the “party of liberty” show a complete lack of respect for the man and his delegates? Hell, you prefaced your remarks on this clip with “I know a lot of you think we’re listening to kookville here, but…”

Rush went on to prove the Republican party’s dedication to liberty by pointing out their stance on abortion and gay rights.  

Wha–huh?!?

“We are not looked at as people who believe in freedom. They see us as thwarting their freedom,” says Rush. “Figure that.” Your party is against reproductive freedom and treating everyone equally. Figure that? Seriously?

Rush’s rationale is that “along with freedom, there are natural limits to it that we call morality.” Fair enough. “[C]ulturally, freedom in pop culture means no obstacles on the road to what we call depravity and decadence. They call it enlightenment, emancipation.” Understand what Rush is saying here: Extending the same legal coverage to same-sex couples that heterosexual couples currently enjoy is depravity and decadence. Unbelievable.

Ron Paul clip #2:

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government. During my time in Congress, the appetite for liberty has been quite weak, the understanding of its significance negligible. 

And Rush goes on to talk about how leftists define freedom as life under authoritarianism.

Of course, Rush also believes in freedom as life under authoritarianism, so I don’t see what his problem is. Sure, he prefers his particular brand of moral authoritarianism over the Democrat brand, but Democrat, Republican–it’s all about more state. The only question is, in which area do you want the state to interfere?

Ron Paul’s point is… well, let’s let him speak for himself, in a clip Rush didn’t play:

Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The answers are to be found in more liberty…”

Rush tried to co-opt Ron Paul’s Farewell Address today, and failed. Sadly, Rush and his party continue to fail at grasping Ron Paul’s message, which has been consistently and clearly enunciated for the past 30 some odd years.

A full transcript of Ron Paul’s address may be found here.  Video of the speech may be watched here.

Scaredy Elephant

A Vote for a Third Party is a Vote for …

“Stop pretending a 3rd party candidate does anything other than empower mainstream Republican candidates.”

This was a friend’s response on Facebook after I shared an interesting infographic from USA Today:

Pretty awesome! I’m not sure where USA Today found those 1,000 likely voters, though. My experience (on Facebook at least) has been that at least a bare majority of Republican and Democratic partisans wishes third parties would just go away, freeing up votes that both sides are convinced belong to their guy.

Back in June, I was ready to throw my lot in with “Not Trump.” I live in Texas, and there’s been some buzz about the Lone Star State possibly swinging blue. (Looking at the FiveThirtyEight forecast, it seems unlikely.)

“[Biden] may be awful, but at least he’s conventionally awful,” I wrote on Facebook. “In 2024, I’ll work to replace him with a Libertarian candidate who reflects my values. Hopefully that will be Amash.”

“Jo Jorgensen is a wonderful candidate, and I’ll continue to support her message,” I added. I thought I could stick to this pledge. Unfortunately I forgot just how insufferable Democrats can be, particularly when it comes to third parties.

Which brings me back to my friend, aghast at my enthusiasm for supporting my party’s candidate for president and chief messenger. His comment was not the first recitation of the tired old nonsense about third parties. Yet another friend posted that Molly Manglewood quote that’s been going around with his own delightful commentary:

“Infuriating,” he says.

Here’s infuriating: Obama’s administration built those cages. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. Joe Biden wrote the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in the Senate and backed the Justice Department grant program that militarized the police. This is all just the tip of the shit iceberg.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party has been constant in its support of immigration, LGBTQ equality, and criminal justice reform since its founding in 1972. There’s nothing abstract about our principles. One simple formulation could have been lifted from All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff. That most assuredly includes marginalized groups.

But let’s get back to that first quote: “Stop pretending a 3rd party candidate does anything other than empower mainstream Republican candidates.”

I referred my friend to Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory over George H.W. Bush. H. Ross Perot ran third party that year, and arguably “hurt” Bush’s vote tally. But I don’t really buy that. As FiveThirtyEight discussed in one of their 2016 election post-mortems, third-party voters are not so neatly predictable. Go figure.

If H. Ross Perot (or Ralph Nader, or Gary Johnson and Jill Stein) hadn’t been on the ballot, some of those voters wouldn’t have bothered, some would have broke Democrat, and some would have broke Republican. In politics as in gender, things aren’t always so neatly binary. (I have to thank my wife for that pithy observation.)

Of course, if Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, the state he represented for 16 years in Congress and his father represented for 18 years in the Senate, those 11 Electoral College votes deducted from George W. Bush and added to Gore’s tally would have been enough to win the election, Florida be damned.

I’m working on another blog on this topic, but the short version is that third-party voters are a known quantity. It’s not like we hide our politics under a bushel. If a major party candidate can’t be bothered to take us into consideration when strategizing their campaign, that’s on them.

We’re apparently a massive threat to Democratic/Republican victory, and yet no one bothers to reach out to us with anything other than shame, fear, threats, and insults.

Instead, to make sure our voices are heard, we have the “privilege” of fighting for every inch. Gathering signatures and filing lawsuits to regain ballot access every election year. Even as states increase the number of signatures required. Even as they fight us tooth and nail in court.

We have the “privilege” of being frozen out of the presidential debates by a Commission created by Republicans and Democrats who show no willingness to let more competition onto the field. Stage of Star and Screen, aka @knutacious found an elegant way to describe what third parties are up against:

“Stop pretending a 3rd party candidate does anything other than empower mainstream Republican candidates,” my friend said. “Mediocre, fringe candidates steal votes from mainstream candidates. Privileged voters with good intentions fall prey to stories of difference makers,” he continued.

At this point all I can do is sigh. And vote for Jo Jorgensen.

Five Things Democrats Could Do to Win My Vote

“This is not the time to withhold our votes in protest or play games with candidates who have no chance of winning.” So says Michelle Obama. There’s nothing new about making the negative case for voting for your candidate of choice. When I was a kid, I remember clearly the number one argument for a George H.W. Bush presidency: “He’s not Dukakis.”

It’s easy to not vote Republican. They’ve long been the party of military adventurism, social morality policing, and have abandoned any real pretense of being “small government.” “Small government” is a laughable catchphrase nowadays in large part due to Republicans.

Throw in President Goofus, a dunderheaded populist who quacks like a racist and waddles like a racist and you pretty much have an open and shut case. I clearly cannot choose the cup in front of me.

The Democrats are not quite as hamfisted in their politicking. I feel the need to actually formulate an argument, rather than just gesture at them, as I can with the GOP. I have to review their platform and record, apply my own first principles, and put into words why I clearly cannot choose the cup in front of you.

The Democratic Party is no less paternalistic than the Republicans. They view government as a tool to wield against every ill, and believe they have the capacity to wield it unerringly. Carried to its logical end, they believe they know how to live my life better than I do, which is one way the two major parties are identical.

They may not want to legislate a woman’s uterus, but they sure as hell want to tell every woman and man exactly what health coverage they must have. They don’t cozy up to Putin, but enough of them cozy up to Maduro and Chavez before him. And it’s astonishing how closely their policies would resemble Trump’s when it comes to free trade.

But as much as I hate the Democrats, I fucking hate Trump. He’s a disaster who has so lowered the bar I’m embarrassed for what few rock-ribbed Republicans still exist. I also live in a state that’s flirting with swinging blue this cycle. What to do?

I might just demand the Democrats earn my vote with something other than shame and fear. I might just demand they give me something in return for my vote. Here are five such things that might sway me.

1. Do the one thing Republicans always say they will do, but never can: Name specific programs and bureaucracies that you would consolidate or eliminate.

You’re all about centralized control, let’s see if you are worthy of it. Make things more efficient. You’re all about change and evolution, let’s see if you can change and evolve the bureaucratic behemoth that you’ve inherited from your progressive forebears.

Look, I could even entertain the idea of Medicare for All if I thought it would be streamlined and sensible, not just more kludge added to an already byzantine labyrinth of extra-legislative bureaucratic folderol. That’s what we already have, and we don’t need more of the same.

2. Embrace pay-go with near-religious fervor. 

You became the party of fiscal responsibility by default. I forgot who first said it (Hillary Clinton, perhaps?), but if you are “tax and spend Democrats,” your opposite number are surely “tax-cut and spend Republicans.” And as much as I hate being told what to do, I have to admit the individual mandate was a necessary part of paying for Obamacare.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez once tweeted that pay-go “isn’t only bad economics,” but also “a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare” and other legislation. Just imagine, a faint attempt at living within your means is a dark political maneuver.

AOC’s assessment of basic fiscal responsibility brings to mind Aesop’s fable of the goose who laid golden eggs and Margaret Thatcher’s pithy observation that, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” AOC and her Democratic Socialist comrades–Bernie Sanders in particular–remind me of student body politicians who promise Free Pizza Fridays if elected.

3. Stop worrying and learn to love capitalism (again).

Only the private market can generate wealth. The government merely confiscates it. If you want to fund your Free Pizza Fridays, you’re going to need a robust economy to pilfer. The more robust the economy, the less such pilfering hurts.

There was a time Democrats loved capitalism. They still should. It’s become a bit hackneyed to say, but no force has done more to lift people out of poverty than capitalism. It increases our quality of life and our autonomy. Granted, it is value neutral, and like any tool may be used to ill effect. 

I’m not an anarchist. I believe there is a role for government to protect the citizenry from force and fraud. I accept a regulatory role for the state, but as in point number one above, it needs to be stripped down to essentials. 

4. Make your wishy-washy commitment to free trade more than just a knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s abhorrent isolationist trade policy.

It was nice to hear Democrats defend free trade as Trump enacted his stupid trade wars. It seems that defense may be short lived if they take the power back. That’s a damn shame. 

Just as capitalism has raised more people out of poverty, free trade has done more for world peace than anything else. In short, you are less inclined to shoot at a trading partner. We reap the benefits of importing less expensive goods and of living in a world where more and more people reap the benefits of capitalism. 

Trade is not a zero sum game. Free and fair trade is of benefit to all parties engaged. It’s win-win, and it makes the world a better place. Obama seemed to get that when he began easing the longstanding and counter-productive trade restrictions against Cuba.

“In Cuba, we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date,” said the President in his 2015 State of the Union Address. “When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new. Our shift in Cuba policy has the potential to end a legacy of mistrust in our hemisphere; removes a phony excuse for restrictions in Cuba; stands up for democratic values; and extends the hand of friendship to the Cuban people.”

Hear, hear.

But a bugbear remains. I understand your concerns about “sending jobs overseas.” If you were committed to ending that, you would make America a much smarter investment for businesses (see point number three above).

5. Become the party of civil rights (again).

I don’t go in for much talk of “American Exceptionalism” except where our civil rights are concerned. No country on earth offers its citizens the protection our 1st Amendment extends, and that’s just the beginning of the Bill of Rights.

Liberal concepts such as freedom of speech, religion, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, a jury of one’s peers, etc. are worthy ideals to aspire to. Those ideals are a lodestar that has guided us away from the dark sins of our collective past towards ever greater freedom of conscience and action.

Criminal justice reform is a massive part of this. Justin Amash, the lone Libertarian in the House authored an elegant, four-page bill to end qualified immunity and restore a vital piece of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Introduced with Ayanna Pressley, a Democrat from Massachusetts, co-sponsored by 64 other Reps, most of whom are Democrats, and enjoying broad popular support, all the Democratic Speaker of the House has to do is bring it up for a vote.

Crickets.

We’re not a perfect union, but embracing civil rights makes us more perfect–or at least less imperfect–with each passing generation. I’d like the Democrats to become less imperfect. It would be nice to cast a vote for a party I can agree with, rather than “playing games” with candidates who have no chance of representing my interests and concerns, casting a protest vote against Donald Trump.

Ah, but it turns out I can cast a vote for a party that represents my interests and concerns, while voting against Trump in a state that’s sure to go red regardless of how coyly she flirts. Maybe Jo Jorgensen stands no chance of winning, but until the Democrats give me something to vote for I’m done getting played.

A Positive Message for Kids, From an Atheist

Ken Ham tweeted on the 4th:

What positive message would an atheist have for kids? Something like: “Kids, you’re just an animal, there’s no God, when you die you won’t know you existed, decide your own rules for life, and treat others to benefit you. Life’s ultimately meaningless.”

Over at Patheos, Luciano Gonzalez put out a call for positive messages for kids from atheists. So here goes:

In case no one has said it yet, welcome!

Humanity is richer with you in it, and I can’t wait for you to discover just how big and amazing this universe is. There is so much to see and learn. Endless things! It’s almost unfair that we have such a short window of time to explore this place, but that also makes our lives incredibly special.

Life is like a never ending story that was started long before we were born, and will continue on long after we’re gone. The part of the story we tell with our lives is vitally important, both to each other, and the people who follow us.

Over the course of your life, many people will make contributions to your story. Their stories will become entwined with your own. Some of these people you will know–your friends, your family, your teachers. Some of these people you will only know from books or recordings. One of my favorite authors lived almost forty years before I was born!

Likewise, you will contribute to the stories of others, both people you know and people who will come along after us. The choices you make can affect the lives of people who haven’t even been born yet!

Some people chose to tell a bad story with their lives. They chose to hurt other people, hurt other animals, and even hurt this planet, the place we live! But we are a social species, which means most people want to be happy and make other people happy. We want to tell a good story with our lives.

Sometimes we mess up and wind up telling the wrong story. If that happens to you, just know that you can always tell a better story. One of the things you’ll discover about this universe is that it is constantly changing and evolving. Since we are a part of the universe, we can change and evolve, too.

All the other people you see around you have stories as rich and deep as your own. We’re all here together, in this world together, so do what you can to help others, and make it possible for them to tell the best story they can with their lives.

This life can be an amazing, awe-inspiring experience, if you let it. I hope you do. I hope you keep your senses open, and your mind working. Have a blast!

Stop with the Thought Stopping

I keep seeing this meme, and I’m not sure if the argument is that requiring an ID for a gun purchase is racist (as voter ID laws seem to be) or if all that should be required for a gun purchase is showing your ID, versus a background check (a rule change I’m sure many of the most fervent 2A supporters would love.)

Regardless, I believe the top map shows states where universal background checks are the rule (i.e. the “gun show loophole” has been closed), but it’s an old map. Oregon and Washington have also closed the loophole.

The bottom map is also inaccurate. I know for a fact California does not require an ID at the polls. California is not alone, and the ID requirements vary among the states that require it. Maybe it shows states where you must have a valid ID to register to vote, but that’s clearly not what it says.

Memes like this are thought stopping. The format is good for a joke, but lousy for critical thinking.

Pascal’s Insult

I’m not calling it “Pascal’s Wager” anymore.

It’s an insult.

It insults me, the person employing it, and their god.

It’s not a witty rhetorical gambit to suggest that my atheism is a callous gamble. It presumes to know the nature of my unbelief, how I came to it, how I came to accept it, and why I chose to publicly embrace it. It waves away many sleepless nights, restless days, careful study, deep meditation, nagging self-doubt, and (at least in the beginning) prayer. I reject the premise and implications. It’s reductive and dismissive.

It also makes light of the path the believer has chosen. Is salvation really so easy? The Apostle Paul talks about running in the race, and the discipline necessary to attain an eternal crown in heaven. Was he a chump? Is it really so easy to enter God’s good graces as Pascal suggests?

And what does that say about God? Pascal’s Insult supposes that hedging your bets would satisfy God. Hedging your bets doesn’t work at the craps table, what makes anyone think the Divine would fall for such a shallow ploy?

As a go-to apologetic, Pascal’s Insult is intellectually impotent. It proves nothing, other than a desire on the part of the believer to quickly cap any debate with bumper sticker logic, and move on to other, less frightening possibilities.

 

Shattering the World of Appearances

A friend recently asked on Facebook, “Who are your favorite renowned or famous influential figures who are *not* musicians, actors or work in entertainment?”

My answer was a bit of a cheat, since he was a renowned poet and playwright. He was also a leader of the Velvet Revolution and the first president of the Czech Republic: Václav Havel.

I’ve revisited some of Havel’s writings recently, and wanted to share a quote from the essay that charted the course for the Czech and Slovakian people to cast off communism like a moldy old coat: “The Power of the Powerless.”

Havel is talking about a greengrocer who unthinkingly puts a “Workers of the World Unite!” sign in his window. He describes this as, in today’s parlance, virtue signaling. He then goes on to speculate as to what would happen to the greengrocer if he decided not to toe the line. To become a nonconformist:

Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence in people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-­defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious. By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co­exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.

(Translation by John Keane)

There is a game going on presently, which I alluded to by referencing “virtue signalling” above. The social cost of breaking the rules is exorbitant.  A person isn’t “spewed” so much as churned and spurned. So much has been made of the evils of cyber bullying, and yet that’s the very cudgel used to bring down those who refuse to “stay in their lane” and play footsie with the postmodern social engineering that’s wending its way through our lives like creeping death.

(The pertinent part starts at about 4:18. Virtue signalling is the new lamb’s blood.)

The game is trading individuality for identity, and seeing to it that any expression of individuality that sticks out is cut down with harsh and unrelenting scorn. It doesn’t matter if the individuality is genuine and free of malice. Harmless expression is no different from a monstrous assault so long as the game is being violated. Trading nuance for vacuity.

For a person who highly values individuality and remains ever skeptical of any concentration of power, the present game gives me shivers. Perhaps because it is post-totalitarianism of the sort Havel describes above, rather than the egalitarianism it pretends to be.

Of Sarwark and Conch Shells

 

Libertarianism may have a Tragedy of the Commons Problem.

When the rules are, “there are no rules,” you’re pretty much asking for the worst in humanity to come out. I’m not saying that the party or the movement is one big “Lord of the Flies” orgy of nonconformists doing whatever the hell they want. I’m not saying that at all. The boys on that island at least had a conch shell.

Well, granted, we have a Sarwark. And he is eerily good at running a meeting according to Robert’s Rules. Like, “Was he created in a lab by Noonian Soong” eerie.

This is the price we pay for emphasizing freedom and equality over obedience and hierarchy. But if, as the oft misattributed quote goes, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” it will serve us well to maintain constant vigilance against the sort of in-fighting and overt displays of selfishness that threaten our chances at the polls. I’m not saying we need to act like grown-ups. I’m saying that “acting like” is not going far enough. We need to grow-up in the way we comport ourselves as an ideological movement and party.

Robert A. Heinlein once wrote, “an armed society is a polite society.” We certainly believe in an armed society. I wonder if we can create, at least among our own ranks, a polite society?

I’m dialing in to Chairman Sarwark’s conference call next Monday night. Maybe I’ll ask him what he thinks.