Skip

It’s always a trip to go over to Treehugger because it shows me what and how the other side thinks of issues.  It is clear that they are Progressive in their authors topics and contents and some of their commenter are REAL hardcore. Not only are they hardcore in renewables, recyling, EVs, and their outlook but they often show the Progressive “you don’t need that” and more than a whiff of micro-totalitarianism in being adamant that no one should have (or enjoy) those activities, discussions or property of which they would disallow.   This post by Katherine Martinko was no exception (emphasis mine):

Why we should pay more for clothes

Shopping for new clothes is a pleasurable experience for most people. It feels good to acquire stylish new items for one’s wardrobe, especially when those clothes don’t cost much. But as soon as shopping means handing over hefty sums of money that really gouge your wallet, the experience becomes less pleasurable and more painful.

This mercurial relationship between buying and paying is at the root of an interesting suggestion made by Quartz’s fashion reporter Marc Bain. Bain has set himself a goal of spending at least $150 whenever he wants to add something new to his wardrobe. This amount – which would vary from person to person – has to be enough to “make you sweat a little.”

Read more

And Progressives / Socialists worship Government to bring a “Heaven on Earth” and they have their orthodoxy and liturgy to which there is no dissent including that there can not be anything else before it.  Yeah, I wanna believe that the former Soviet Union, the early Communist China, Viet Nam, Venezuela and of course, North Korea are EXACTLY what the Workers’ Paradise was supposed to look like. Those on the Political Correctness college campuses all over the US may now believing in a religion all of their own (a self-flagellation type)? From a post at Instapundit, three sections of a “behind a paywall” post at the WSJ: JONATHAN HAIDT ON THE CULTURAL ROOTS OF CAMPUS RAGE:

Emphasis mine – and the money line is in the last ‘graph:

When a mob at Vermont’s Middlebury College shut down a speech by social scientist Charles Murray a few weeks ago, most of us saw it as another instance of campus illiberalism. Jonathan Haidt saw something more—a ritual carried out by adherents of what he calls a “new religion,” an auto-da-fé against a heretic for a violation of orthodoxy.

“The great majority of college students want to learn. They’re perfectly reasonable, and they’re uncomfortable with a lot of what’s going on,” Mr. Haidt, a psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, tells me during a recent visit to his office. “But on each campus there are some true believers who have reoriented their lives around the fight against evil.”

However, the “evil” is not about the tradition Christian sense of goodness and sin, but around political discourse (again, Conservatives think Progressives are misguided; Progressives believe Conservatives are EVIL).  And like any fundamentalist religion, well, these folks act like Westboro Baptist church members.

Read more

Tagging onto the back of my previous post is this one by Prof. Victor Davis Hanson (one of my favorite writers),  on more of the new Progressive Religion’s attributes (emphasis mine):

The Obama victory of 2008 had a profound effect on the Democratic Party, suggesting that the “power” of getting elected twice gave “truth” to Obama’s polarizing brand of organizing groups based on ethnic and racially based grievances, in concert against a supposedly fading and bigoted establishment. (This axiom is in need of some postmodern revisionism after the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the loss of most governorships, state legislatures, the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.)

The Alt-Left largely dismisses the old liberal idea of 1960s Civil Rights. Liberals once promoted integration and the goal of an American melting pot empowered by the time-honored traditions of racially blind integration, assimilation, and intermarriage. The liberal goal once was a common American culture and experience where race became subsidiary. Yet we hear little from liberals any more about non-discrimination and integration. Instead, preference, diversity, and segregated safe spaces become the new discriminatory and reparatory agendas.

The new religious tenets which cannot ever by broached – or even questioned.  It is the political version of the Star Trek Borg – you will be assimilated or be destroyed.  And make no mistake – they will try to destroy you; I and the other Groksters have seen it personally and up close.

Read more

Nope, not gonna link because, well, I’m not going to out someone who doesn’t want to be.  But first, my response:

THis is REALLY scary when you start thinking about the ramifications, not just about Rice being outed for outing others but that your friends just got yanked backwards as if they were movie stunt men. What’s that old saw about “a government that is big enough to give you everything…” – I think they’re starting to realize its offshoots and secondary effects.

And what captured my attention?

Read more

What we’re seeing today with the severe politicization of SCOTUS nominations (simply because Government has become so big and intrusive, the stakes for any nominee are YUGE!) does have a history, and one that Ted Kennedy (“The Swimmer”) way back gave a huge kickstart.  The history from a piece called “Ted Kennedy Killed the Judicial Filibuster” (emphasis mine):

This is Ted Kennedy’s fault:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

This wasn’t a legal critique, it was character assassination, and it was character assassination that worked. One of the most thoughtful and qualified judges ever nominated for the Supreme Court was defeated as part of a pure political power play, one justified through slanderous and scandalous rhetoric.

It was and we’re seeing the ramifications today – what the Dems are doing are just a power play continuation.  But “oh Skip!”, you say, what about Garland??

Read more

From The Corner, a two-fer: biased journalists and the “cuts” (emphasis mine):

Issie Lapowsky at Wired has an interesting piece on Ro Khanna’s proposal to radically expand the earned-income tax credit. Lapowsky writes that this will be difficult to do, because “the Trump administration is gutting the federal budget.”

Setting aside the fact that tax laws are written by Congress and not by the White House, the Trump administration’s budget proposal contains a 1.2 percent spending cut to the discretionary budget, i.e. a 1.2 percent cut to a portion of the budget that amounts to less than one-third of federal spending. A 1.2 percent cut to 29 percent of federal spending is not “gutting the federal budget” under any plausible interpretation of those words by a reasonably literate English-speaking person.

Read more

Pedro Cerame: Pedro, Pedro, Pedro – a second attempt at extortion (first one here)?  Really?  Is this the result of a failure on that first attempt – none of the Governors were impressed? Shouldn’t you know that threatening other States’ elected officials and their budgets is childish at best and thuggish in reality?  Doing it AGAIN shows that either YOU are crooked or that your CULTURE is – or both. Last time you only threatened Governors and their budgets; your Sword of Damocles was the threat of your citizens fleeing your State and going right onto THEIR doles.

Sidenote: it seems that the idea that your citizens, already on your dole, would move to become the wards of another State is…..puzzling.  Shouldn’t your efforts, instead of threatening others, be oriented in making PR a business powerhouse?  Or is that also a function of your culture?

This says a lot about your State and not just that the Federal money is about to run out (guess you didn’t pay much heed to Margaret Thatcher warning) that it has no problem in ruining others’?  What does this say about the morality of your leadership team (aka, your boss)?

This time, you decided to make it more personal – the most inflammatory ‘graphs are here:

…”We are here to alert you, the Orlando-area Puerto Rican community and all Florida taxpayers, about this important issue and the impact it will have on you, your neighbors, and perhaps your family members still living on the island,” said Secretary of State Rivera. “if not addressed soon, it will contribute to increasing the already high migration from Puerto Rico and cause severe strain on the Florida and federal budgets.”

Read more