Category Archives: Progressivism

The Tragedy of The Commons, Children’s Edition

The whole “the kids don’t belong to you; they belong to the community” bit is just a less cagey way of saying “it takes a village,” so at least Melissa Harris-Perry gets points for honesty.

My favorite part of the “All Your Children Are Belong To Us” MSNBC Promo comes at the end:

“Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”

I marvel at the sheer act of willful blindness required in order to believe such a complete load of male bovine manure.  I mean, let’s all apply this to our front yards, shall we, and then hold our breath while we wait for the neighbors to come mow ours?

You know, corporations are a kind of microcosm of the larger society.  Corporate-y type folks who make their living ensuring that a corporation “makes better investments” have noticed that the truth is exactly inverse to Ms. Harris-Perry’s statement:

When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.

And haven’t the sociological/psychological types done study after study and pretty much come up with the same truth regarding human nature?

I wonder if Ms. Harris-Perry, being a good collectivist and all, would respect Garrett Hardin‘s belief that human overpopulation is a serious global threat?  If so, maybe she could also put some merit into his concept of The Tragedy of the Commons:

“In 1974 the general public got a graphic illustration of the “tragedy of the commons” in satellite photos of the earth. Pictures of northern Africa showed an irregular dark patch 390 square miles in area. Ground-level investigation revealed a fenced area inside of which there was plenty of grass. Outside, the ground cover had been devastated.

The explanation was simple. The fenced area was private property . . . .”

Yeah.  Let’s all ignore a truth so obvious that even a Malthusian human ecologist with totalitarian tendencies can see it, and let’s “break through” the private idea that kids belong to their parents.  Let’s engage in an experiment called The Tragedy of the Commonly Cared-for Children, because Miss MSNBC Lady says things’ll turn out just peachy.

Good grief.

I haven’t seen a more sure sign of the decline of our society since I first saw somebody pushing one of those dog strollers through the park.

Yeah, that's right.  I'm hating on the cute dog's stroller.

Yeah, that’s right. I’m hating on the cute dog’s stroller.

For All

Settling into a new community and routine has absorbed most of my time, but I’m still around.

Still around, but tired.  Pointless arguments with friends of friends on Facebook, the ludicrous media response to violence in the Middle East, and a relentlessly muggy Tampa climate haven’t helped matters, either.  (Tomorrow is the first day of autumn?  Oh, but to see sign of it!)

Really, things have gotten so ridiculous that it’s a little hard to keep blogging.  After the eternity that has been Obama’s first term, continually explaining why 2 + 2 = 4 becomes a tiresome chore indeed, especially when one suspects that she is only preaching to the choir and making little headway otherwise.  I know, I know, speaking out is still important . . . but the little things get me down.

Like when I ran into a friend from three duty stations ago, and the upcoming presidential election came up.  I was treated to a casual remark that, while the current President’s record is unsatisfactory, she was afraid that an elected Romney wouldn’t let people have the freedom to marry who they want, and also he would require all women to wear skirts. (!?!eleventy!?!)

National security is more important than homosexual “rights,” I said, bringing up the hot mic incident, during which Obama demonstrated that he is willing to say one thing to the electorate, but another thing entirely to Russian leadership.  She had never heard about it.

Sigh.  Since I ran into this person at the commissary, at least I was able to soothe my nerves by buying some extra nonperishables.

Now, don’t you worry or nothin.  I haven’t given up hope.  I’m just running low on steam.  There’s not much for me to add to the conversation right now . . . at least, not anything that you and I haven’t said a hundred times apiece.

Only thing new to me is a little tidbit from Older Son’s curriculum.  I’ll share it, and see if it’s new to you as well.  You see, I’ve heard comparisons aplenty of the Democrat hold on black voters to the slavery of old.  C.L. Bryant made a whole movie on this very idea.  Click here to see if Runaway Slave is playing at a theater near you.

What I’ve never heard before is a positive comparison of slavery with the protective nanny-state progressives are always striving to achieve.  Apparently, though, pre-civil war Southerners made this very argument.  All defensive about their “peculiar institution,” many Southern apologists sought to explain why slavery was not a necessary evil, but actually for the best.  One of those apologists was George Fitzhugh.

Fitzhugh asserted in Cannibals All! or Slaves without Masters that Southern slaves were luckier than free Northern workers.  The Landmark History of the American People by Daniel Boorstin explains Fitzhugh’s argument:

“They were slaves with masters.  They had the best kind of social security.  Whatever happened, it was not their worry.  They did not have to pay any bills.  They had no problem of unemployment.  Slavery, as Fitzhugh described it, was a kind of socialism, where all property was put in the hands of the people (the white people) best qualified to use it, for the benefit of everybody, whites and Negroes.  Three cheers for slavery!”

Hmm.  Property put in the hands best qualified to use it for the benefit of everybody?  For the benefit of all?  Oh, yeah, I get it#ForAll.

nooneofanyimport:

I found an interesting development and good analysis over at The Patriot Perspective.
Saying that women don’t belong isn’t too popular a stance nowadays.  Still, it needs saying sometimes.  It doesn’t mean women should have their opportunities limited because their gender is inferior.  It just means the constraints of reality can limit women’s opportunities whether we like to admit it or not.
Have a great weekend, everyone!

Originally posted on The Patriot Perspective:

Via the insulting leftist social-engineers at  Gannett Marine Corps Times:

The Marine Corps school that produces infantry combat officers will enroll its first-ever female students this year, Marine Corps Times has learned.

As part of the service’s extensive research campaign to determine what additional jobs could be opened to women, an undetermined number of volunteers will attend the Infantry Officers Course in Quantico, Va., said Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Corps’ assistant commandant. There, Marine officers are groomed to serve in direct combat roles and lead troops into battle.

“We are in the process right now of soliciting volunteers,” Dunford said on Wednesday.

It’s a monumental — if controversial — move for the Marine Corps, which until now barred female Marines from the program and required instead that they attend other courses aimed at preparing them for assignments in support roles such as logistics, personnel administration and aircraft maintenance, among…

View original 432 more words

Is That The Sound of Croaking Frogs I Hear?

So . . . with a hot mic, the President accidentally proves how comfortable he is with the idea of telling the voters he’ll do one thing, when he really intends to do something else.

Yeah.

In a sane world, this revelation would create more of an uproar than that Casey Anthony acquittal did.

Alas, we don’t live in a sane world.  Outside the conservative blogosphere, mostly we just hear crickets chirping and frogs croaking.

Speaking of frogs, I recently checked out a collection of Aesop fables.  One of the fables is called The Frogs Who Desired A King.  Are you familiar with that one?

Here is Caxton’s original translation, circa 1484.  It’s my favorite version, but man oh man that’s some crazy Olde Englishe.  Let me rephrase:

There were once some frogs who lived in liberty, but they wanted a king.  They asked Jupiter to give them a king.  They asked in one voice–no dissent, so it was all democratic and everything.   Now, Jupiter knew these frogs weren’t the smartest bunch.  So to placate them, he sent a piece of wood which splashed loudly in the pond.

This commotion scared the frogs at first.  They approached their king cautiously, to make obeisance to him.  When they realized their new ruler was just an ineffective lump of wood, they weren’t happy.  They went back to Jupiter and asked for a better king.  Jupiter was like, fine.  And he sent a Heron to be their king.

The Heron flew down and began to eat the frogs, one after another.  The frogs began to cry, and they begged Jupiter to deliver them from the throat of this tyrant.  Jupiter replied, tough.  The king which you demanded shall be your master.

Today, I was over at Disrupt the Narrative, watching footage of demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court building.  A group of folks were chanting “We . . . love . . . Obamacare” to the beat of a tambourine, and boy.  They sure sounded like Aesop’s frogs.  I just hope that Jupiter does not give them what they are asking for.

Caxton’s version is my favorite because of the way he phrased the moral of the story.  I don’t think the Olde Englishe needs much updating to be understood:

For when men have that which men oughte to have, they ought to be joyeful and glad. And he that hath lyberte ought to kepe it well.  For nothyng is better than lyberte.  For lyberte should not be well sold for alle the gold and sylver of all the world.

Chuck Pads The Blog

I’m working on a more lengthy post, but real life keeps trumping the blog.

I’m still here, though, and here is proof:  a message from Chuck Woolery.  Enjoy, and in case I don’t post or comment in the next several days, Merry Christmas!  And Happy New (General Election) Year!

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 656 other followers