The New Puritans

For John, BLUF:  I would like to see a happy balance.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Left Are Annoying Puritans

From PJ Media, by Ms Sarah Hoyt, 27 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus ten:

Every time I blunder into a discussion of [paperbackbook] covers in my field, I realize that the left has turned into puritans so slowly we barely noticed.

When I was young – yes, and Mastodon roamed the Earth – the left was all about “liberation.”

Of course, even then, if you paid close attention – or any attention, really – you’d see they idolized the Soviet Union and no one could really believe it was “free” when people were dying to get out.

But as the seventies progressed on their very strange way, I told myself they were just odd people who believed the lies published about the Soviet Union, and they wanted complete freedom to do whatever they wanted.

It might surprise the people who were born after the seventies to find out that the left really wanted no taboos at all.  At least in Europe, if you attended a certain type of party, you might be importuned by adult males way before the age of consent.  And when you refused you were told you had a problem and were repressing your sexuality or had “inhibitions.”  (I developed an answer that was something like this “No, I don’t have any hang-ups about nudity.  I just have no interest in seeing old men naked, thank you.” It usually made them go away.)

In fact, just about anything you didn’t want to do or try, you were told that you had hang-ups, and how much better you’d feel if you just gave them up and did whatever the person talking to you wanted.

If someone had told me back then that the left would in time become complete Puritans, I’d not have believed them.

But just look at them now.

When the cover for Darkship Thieves was settled on, the male editor who was attending the conference I was at did not show it to me because I am a woman, and he was afraid I’d be offended.

To be clear, the cover has zero sexual content.  It shows a woman in a pose reminiscent of Botticelli’s Venus, mostly naked, with a sort of wrap around her that hides all the crucial points.

It is also quite obviously art, not porn.  And it did wonders for the book sales.

The thing that goes along with this new Puritanism is the idea that females need to be protected from toxic, hypermasculine males.  We have regressed back to the Victorian Era, or maybe to the age of Chivelry.  Or maybe we are enroute to an age without males.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

If You Don't Conform, You Are Smeared

For John, BLUF:  Being without party, as Geo Washington hoped for, is probably not protection.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democracy in Chains Author Nancy MacLean Calls Autism a Leading Cause of Libertarianism

The sub-headline:

"It’s striking to me how many of the architects of this cause seem to be on the autism spectrum: people who don’t feel solidarity or empathy with others."

From Reason, by Reporter Robby Soave, 13 February 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Nancy MacLean, the Duke University historian who wrote Democracy in Chains, the deeply conspiratorial and much-criticized biography of public choice economist James Buchanan, told an audience in New York last week that Buchanan and other early leaders of the limited-government movement "seem to be on the autism spectrum."

According to MacLean, there is a connection between autism and libertarianism, and that connection is not feeling "solidarity or empathy," and having "kind of difficult human relationships sometimes."  The implication is that libertarianism is similarly cold and unfeeling, and attracts people who don't care about others.

There it is, Ladies and Gentlemen, those of us who believe in limited government are autistic.  At least we don't have Aspergers, which would identify us as a Progressive.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Troll Not Trolling

For John, BLUF:  Our Tax Dollars at work, or not.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Milo Yiannopoulis interview Milo says NPR doesn't want you to hear.

This is via Breitbart.

Here is Law Professor Ann Althouse's closing comment on this blog post:

On whether they are silencing Milo, they are silencing themselves.  That gives free rein to all who want to say NPR was flummoxed by the troll who wouldn't troll on cue but spoke rationally about the value of a troll.

From the Comments:

traditionalguy said...
Milo is a rare interview because he is very entertaining.  PBS is stuck between a truth rock and a narrative hard place.

How embarrassing for National Public Radio.

Hat tip to the Althouse blog.

Regards  —  Cliff

Charles Koch Agrees With Bernie Sanders—On Some Things

For John, BLUF:  Some think that party distinctions based on ideas are less and less viable.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing in the InstaPundit Blog, Ms Elizabeth Price Foley gives us an " EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY"♠ comment.  Mr Charles Koch has an OpEd in The Washington Post, “This is the One Issue Where Bernie Sanders is Right.”

As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates.  I have never met the senator, but I know from listening to him that we disagree on plenty when it comes to public policy. . . .

Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers.  This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States.  These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies. . . .

Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit.  This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers.  That’s why Koch Industries opposes all forms of corporate welfare — even those that benefit us.  (The government’s ethanol mandate is a good example. We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States.)

It may surprise the senator to learn that our framework in deciding whether to support or oppose a policy is not determined by its effect on our bottom line (or by which party sponsors the legislation), but by whether it will make people’s lives better or worse. . . .

Our criminal justice system, which is in dire need of reform, is another issue where the senator shares some of my concerns.  Families and entire communities are being ripped apart by laws that unjustly destroy the lives of low-level and nonviolent offenders.

Today, if you’re poor and get caught possessing and selling pot, you could end up in jail. Your conviction will hold you back from many opportunities in life.  However, if you are well-connected and have ample financial resources, the rules change dramatically.  Where is the justice in that? . . .

At this point you may be asking yourself, “Is Charles Koch feeling the Bern?”

Hardly.

I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives.  This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place. . . .

I don’t expect to agree with every position a candidate holds, but all Americans deserve a president who, on balance, can demonstrate a commitment to a set of ideas and values that will lead to peace, civility and well-being rather than conflict, contempt and division.  When such a candidate emerges, he or she will have my enthusiastic support.

Isn't it pleasant to find that Senator Bernie Sanders and Industrialist Charles Koch actually agree on some things.

Ms Foley notes:

I’ve always thought it was strange for Democrats to spend so much energy demonizing the Kochs who are, after all, libertarians who agree with the left on many social issues.  Most of their non-profit spending goes to educational efforts aimed at enhancing individual liberty (which explains why they are the functional equivalent of Lucifer to liberals/progressives/totalitarians).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  In the digital age might that be once a day?

Whether the Republicans

For John, BLUF:  Nothing in the future is guaranteed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Washington Post has an article on Republican fissures.  The title is "Some evangelicals in Republican Party are feeling left out, see no standard-bearer".

Maybe these two paragraphs say it best:

The disconnect between social conservatives and the GOP has become a “chasm,” said Gary Bauer, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and is now head of the Campaign for Working Families.  He pointed to the party’s two most recent presidential nominees, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, as examples of candidates who were touted initially as having broad appeal to centrists in the general election but ultimately never inspired evangelicals and lost.

“Values voters have been treated as the stepchildren of the family, while the party has wanted to get on with so-called more electorally popular ideas,” Bauer said.  “The Republican base will not tolerate another candidate foisted upon us as a guy who can win.”

That is my link embedded in the quote.

I would suggest that part of the reason Senator Scott Brown lost his second election was because those socially conservative voters stayed home the second time, while the Democrats turned out over 600,000 additional voters.

YEAR	BROWN	DEM	INDY	OTHER	BLANK	TOTAL
2010	1,168,178	1,060,861	22,388	1155	1145	2,253,727
2012	1,458,048	1,696,346	--	2,159	27,643	3,184,196

Senator Brown picked up less than half as much.  Not a good sign.  And the big uptick in "Blank" ballots, re Senator, is, to me, a telling sign.

So, is it Dr Ben Carson for the Republicans?  I hear from folks who say yes.

I think the deeper issue is whether or not the Republican Party can survive half social conservative and half libertarian.  And, if the Republican Party crashes, what will it do to Democrats?  Will they stay united, following the Reid/Pelosi line, or will there be fracturing?

Regards  —  Cliff

Ghostbusters

For John, BLUF:  Looking for the hidden messages in comedy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I have got to watch the movie Ghostbusters.  I have seen parts of it, but not the whole thing, straight through.  Time to update my Netflix queue.

Why Ghostbusters?  This item from The Washington Examiner.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Only Candidate

Over at the Althouse blog we have a link to a NewsMax article about the Libertarian Candidate for President, Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.  Talking about his platform he tells us:

I’m the only candidate that wants to end the drug war.  I’m the only candidate that wants to repeal the Patriot Act.  I’m the only candidate that’s talking about marriage equality as being a constitutionally guaranteed right.  I’m the only candidate that wants to balance the federal budget now, and that means reforming the entitlements:  Medicaid, Medicare.

I would like to know what he means by the Constitution guaranteeing "marriage equality".

Quoted in Think Progress, he appears to be supporting "gay marriage" but may really be going beyond that.

As a believer in individual freedom and keeping government out of personal lives, I simply cannot find a legitimate justification for federal laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, which ‘define’ marriage.  That definition should be left to religions and individuals – not government. Government’s role when it comes to marriage is one of granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage ‘contract’.  As I have examined this issue, consulted with folks on all sides, and viewed it through the lens of individual freedom and equal rights, it has become clear to me that denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. [...]

Today, I believe we have arrived at a point in history where more and more Americans are viewing it as a question of liberty and freedom.  That evolution is important, and the time has come for us to align our marriage laws with the notion that every individual should be treated equally.

Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson seems to not be excluding plural marriages, say the way Maggie's Marshall did.

Are there principles involved, or just special interests?  I am on the record, from when I ran for office, as saying everyone should get civil unions from the state and "marriages" should be done in arrangement with your local minister.  Right now that everyone is straight and homosexual couples.  Why is that the natural limit?  I would like to draw the line there, but isn't that just me trying to impose my religious or cultural ideas on everyone else?

Regards  —  Cliff