A Look At The Allegiant, a Progressive Socioeconomic Network

Drudge linked to a story in Politico.  While visiting the left side of the tracks I clicked on a story that interested me.  It was “published” in The Allegiant
The Allegiant is a far left “Progressive Socioeconomic Network” blog as its masthead proudly asserts.  There, graphic caricatures àla NY Times Book Review show Barack O and the grandly titled editor-in-chief Vincent Briatore. 
Though tempting to use the name of the rag as proof to its dedicated unwavering allegiance to Obladee that would be dishonest on my part.  The “About Us” goes to considerable length explaining the significance of its name. (Is this a typically leftist fascination, or is it merely the sign of one who is so enamored with his wit that he wants us to be sure we “get it”?  Perhaps indeed the latter is true given the nature of the article that initially got my attention.)  No, it is not a frank statement of dogmatic servility, though it is, “About Us” tells us that this is to be an effort to reclaim the patriotic symbols that for some reason or another the right wing ignoramuses (that would be me) have co-opted. 

“I believe we as a nation have begun to associate these images with conservative republican propaganda and I’m not the only one who has noticed. This association is exactly what makes the intro to the Colbert Report so hilarious. Colbert satirically displays conservatives’ exploitation of patriotic symbols. He flies in on the American flag and a bald eagle swoops down to begin the show.”

Yes, Briatore is enamored with his own wit and wants us to know he is one of the hipsters who “gets” Colbert’s satire.  Wow. As if ….
The Allegiant’s “About Us” is one-stop shopping for the entire gamut of Leftist vanities. 
Patriotism is not partisan. One political party isn’t more American than the other.”  Why is that necessarily true?  Why must we accept that proposition as self-evident?  “Patriotism is not the blind following of the status quo.”  No, but neither is one necessarily a Patriot who demands the total transformation of America.   Beware girlfriends who “love you” but want to change just a few things about you.  It’s the “buts” that bite. 
The Left also typically believes the reverse is true: “Partisanism is not patriotic.”
The appeal to bury “partisan” interests in favor of The Common Interest is always made by those who presume to divine the true common interest of a nation of 300 + million Americans.  A lofty impression of one’s own intellect, knowledge and motives is required for such a grand self-importance.  And that is the key to the Leftists’ mind. 

That sense of superiority is admirably portrayed at The Allegiant.  “In fact, the very foundation of our country is that of dissent and secession from oppressive rule.”  Yes, Mr. Briatore give yourself a star for American History!  However, the implication that The Left follows in the tradition of men like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Madison et al. is beyond ludicrous.  The Left’s definition of “Oppression” can mean anything from counting ketchup as a vegetable in the school lunch program to the audacity that CEO’s of corporations larger than many nation-states are paid salaries higher than those paid in the public sector.  It is racist Oppression if the number of “minority” rocket scientists is less than its demographic percentage would predict.  However it is not if the number of Jewish NBA players fails to hit its demographic ratio.  And disarming the majority American-Americans is not oppressive in the least!  Was it the Left, was it Occupy This! That was given a rectal exam by the IRS?  Nope.  Is it the Rainbow GLBT-crowd that is labeled as potential terrorists?  Nope, that would be the Tea Party!  One of the traits of The Left is their tendency to change the common definitions of words.  “Oppression” to them means any person or idea opposed to redistributive change.  Since WW2 the United States has been governed by a series of presidents who despite rhetorical differences and varied “optics” have all furthered Statist Redistributive evolution.  The brave idealistic Leftist will don his armor to do battle with those “cowards” who stand up against the overweening State.  How such craven behavior is cast as idealistic is beyond me!  Is Briatore seriously comparing himself and his ilk to those who in fact did and do fight long odds against real power?  The arrogance of ignorance never fails to astound! 
One of the rights given to us in the first amendment is the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  What could be more patriotic than exercising the very rights that make our nation great?”  How sophomoric!  How inane!  He is like the wise ass young “genius” that spouts arguments based on flawed premises and counters criticism with self-righteous calls for Freedom of Speech!  No one is arguing that the Left may not avail themselves of all the rights recognized by the Constitution.  However, though their right to petition is unquestioned, the actual content of their grievance might preclude their being labeled patriots by most of us of normal mind.  Does the author really believe that dissent itself is patriotic?  Any and all dissent? 
“About Us” concludes with a trumpeting fanfare: “A billboard in Florida read, “America: love it or get out!” It seems this is a growing sentiment for many Americans. I argue that a true love for America is not found in bumper stickers of red stripes and blue stars, it’s not handing over your individual rights in the name of security, or refusing to acknowledge any weakness in our government. True patriotism is not only the love of our country but the courage to exercise the rights that will enable our nation to persevere.
Of the many, many problems with this load of … words I will only point out that any observer would notice that the stars are white on a blue background and blue stars are not present. 
Strange, his people are the government!  The ones questioning its power and direction are the very same folks he accuses of being basically dumbasses! 
The article headline in Politico that led to The Allegiant was “I HAVE SEEN MY HAT: Six Inappropriate Children’s’ Books” by hswhite.
I was attracted by the common Leftist construction of “TITLE: subtitle” which they associate with Intilektchual prowess.  “Inappropriate” too, is a word that often gets my cackles up.  “Inappropriate to whom?” as Ayn Rand might have quipped if she were a quipper. 
In and of itself the article is not political.  However, the Leftist nature is seen in what turns out to be the ironic use of “Inappropriate”.  The Well-Indoctucated college grad is a house of mirrors.  Ironic sarcastic mirrors glibly make ironic references to each other.  And since it is socially fatal to miss a level of irony and be seen as a Pre-Post Modernist one must be on guard at all times to keep up.  And worse is that one must never let on that they fear being lame.  That would be lame!  So uncool!
Without further ado, here is a list of some amazing inappropriate children’s books. Click on a title and you’ll be taken to visuals highlighting their glory…
The author concludes after describing some horrible children’s books with “So… would I read all of these books to my 3-year-old niece? Totally. Life is short and hard to handle (as are most young children) and it’s never too early to begin helping them develop a sense of humor.”  So the upshot is that “inappropriate” means “appropriate” for budding young future Leftist.  It is never too soon to develop a knack for mocking that which the Modern Age held dearly. 
The Allegiant I believe will be a fun site to visit from time to time when I get bored stepping on ants. 

“The Vet Will See You Now”

Federalist Society success inspires campus copies news.yahoo.comDURHAM, N.C. (AP) — A new conservatism is beginning to emerge on some college campuses, spurred in part by opposition to President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. This AP story cannot help dropping its pants. The last paragraph “The Benjamin Rush Society traces its roots to 2008, when Canadian activist Sally Pipes organized a Washington meeting with support from the Kansas City-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Its credo: “the profession of medicine calls its practitioners to serve their patients rather than the government.” Conversely, they also support so-called “concierge medicine” in which those with more money pay for individualized care otherwise unavailable.”
Only one with preconceived notions of what the word “patients” means could define the two points as being opposed. Serving patients per the AP apparently means Patients In The Abstract. Only by reading “patients” as meaning the General Public can “Concierge Medicine” be considered “converse”.
This is exactly the problem. This is the nub of every debate about Left vs. “Right”; Socialism vs Free Enterprise, Statism vs. Capitalism, Slavery vs. Liberty!
The Leftist sees The People. The American Constitutionalist sees A Person.
The moral practicing doctor is in an individual doctor-patient relationship with EACH of his/ her patients. It is not a collective construct. The Leftist will invariably charge the moral practicing doctor with Public Health responsibilities.
In the past, the doctor was one of the more highly respected individuals in the community. This was not because he was a revered healer. In fact in times not so long past, the best doctor had little to offer the sick. He was however always one of the more educated men in town. The Doctor was traditionally literate in Latin and had exposure to the entire body of Western Literature. He was not naive to Political Philosophy, as the high numbers of physicians amongst the leaders of the American Revolution attests.
It is not mere happenstance that the diminishment of the social standing of doctors has occurred simultaneously with the evolution of Medical education. Rather than producing well-rounded humanists the process is producing extremely narrowly focused technicians. A better healer, yes (maybe!); but no longer is he a repository of classical Liberal education.
These medical students of the Rush Society have chosen well their name. They will be the soul of an otherwise soulless guild. They will be the Professional men and women, the few in a sea of non-Western/post-Western “providers”.
The practice of medicine is either based upon treating individuals OR upon treating populations. The former proposition requires doctors, the latter, veterinarians.
Despite their worst intentions the Left cannot overturn the No Free Lunch Law. The American people deserve doctors treating them individually not vets treating them as a herd animal. Or maybe not, maybe they do not deserve anything more than they demand?

Nine Deadly Sins of Post Moderns: Time Mag, Rahm Emmanuel

In this week’s TIME cover story, editor-at-large David Von Drehle writes that Chicago “has budget problems and crime problems, problems of inequality and racial division, problems of mutual suspicion and failing schools, of high unemployment and aging infrastructure. And behind it all, special interests so deeply entrenched you need spelunking gear to go after them.” TIME
REALITY: the collectivist mindset is so deeply entrenched in their hack “jour~nal~lisst” (Michael Savage sneer) that one needs spelunking bla bla..
What does this red-diaper doper baby mean by this role call of the 7 or in his case 10 deadly sins of Post-modernism?
What are reasonable political issues on which to critique a politician?
Are “budget problems”? Yes.  But the rest?
Crime Problems?  No!  A society that produces feral yutes is not governable by any system we would recognize as political.
Inequality?  Since when is equality of wealth considered an end for which the power of government ought be enlisted?  It is not within the arena of legitimate political action to address income equality or inequality!  Only whether or not wealth was gained legally, can be considered.  Who will decide what  ideal amount of “inequality” is “ok”?  I imagine the Platonic Republic Engineers will use some bell-curve rubric.  But with every year the bell will become steeper and narrower.  Will the goal be a bimodal distribution with a sharp spike at the median and a smaller hump to the right where the social engineers income will fall?
Mutual Suspicion?  Well yeah!  If there were zealots seeking to redistribute one’s wealth into arbitrary sets, of course a degree of mutual suspicion like that on the lifeboat in the midst of the ocean will take hold.  (Think Pi without the animals!)
Failing schools?  It depends; failing by what criteria?  Again, the education of a generation gone feral born to government-dependent girls, lacking father-figures is not amenable by ANY conceivable education policy.  However, the Chicago Department of Education is a misnomer.  It is in fact the department of educators and their unions.
High unemployment?  Again, no fan of Rahm Emmanuel but the deindustrialization of the USA, is not something he can reverse.  Yes, high city taxes and state taxes of Illinois will not attract many new businesses. So, here is where The High Lord With-Us, might have made a difference.  That would have required him turning against his Municipal Unions.  The Unions made him, and will break him, unless he came hard against them.  Only by aggressively renegotiating union pension costs and benefits could he trade blue collar unions, public sector unions, teachers’ unions, the dependent class, and their professional handlers for middle class support.  But these Obamacytes raison d’être is the destruction of the bourgeoise Middle Class!  They sought power to undo the brief ephemeral centuries of the Middle Class.  If not for that then power for its own sake must be admitted to themselves as their real goal. (In fact all “revolutionaries” merely spout dogma to justify their crimes against humanity.  Under the rhetoric are cockroaches scurrying from light.).
Aging Infrastructure?  See above.  There certainly is adequate taxation for infrastructure repair and replacement.  But not for that and also the social safety mattress.  Lets be clear, it ain’t a net.  Generations do not stay in safety nets.  It is a safety mattress, and the entire public sector welfare industry raise families pay off mortgages and make lives out of ministering the mattress!
Finally, the typical RDDB (red diaper …) attack on “Special Interests”.  The left’s vanity is that not only is there a singular “Common Good”, but that they are privy to it!  There is no such thing as The Common Good!  As Ayn Rand would ask “good for whom?”
Every single Government decision will benefit some and harm others.  The only successful system has been to keep the arena over which government has sway to a minimum.  And within that arena allow the representatives of the people to trade, bargain, compromise etc.  As said, if you eat sausages don’t visit a packing house.  The Zealots whine about the self-interested bargaining in Congress.  Because the American Framers expected a government of disinterested statesmen, the arrival of very interested representatives was seen as corrupt.  However, the democratization of the American Revolution continued long after the Constitution was settled.  By the time of Andrew Jackson the ideal of enlightened statesmen was given up.  It was accepted that all legislation had winners and losers.  It was up to the representatives of various interests to create policies that approximated the common interest.  But this is accomplished NOT by seeking the Common Good, but by the net total of competing interests reaching dynamic equilibrium.
To refer to Special Interests as if they are opposed to some “Common Interest” is to claim to sit high above the fray and have a God’s Eye view!  Rahm Emmanuel: means The High Lord Is With Us.

How The Left Controls the Debate: “Wealth Inequality”

My kid had to write an English 101 paper on “Wealth Inequality”. I said WTF!? This is like Soviet education/ indoctrination. Soviet math: “If 1,254 running dogs of the Imperialists are set to running away by 430 brave revolutionary pioneers, how many Imperialists would 40 Pioneers chase?”
WEALTH INEQUALITY does not exist as a thing. By making it into a topic one is actually creating an issue where there is none. This is typical of how the Left works. They create terms or realign old words into slightly different definitions. “Privilege” is a newly realigned word. From its roots in Latin for “private law” it meant a legal (the “lege” part of the word) boon granted by a feudal lord to a dependent. Because it came from the legitimate law maker, privilege was license to do something that others were not. 
The glibness with which the “problem with privileged groups” is addressed is exactly like the newly minted “Wealth Inequality”. By creating a proper noun phrase “Wealth Inequality” any debate about it concedes its reality. 
What can wealth inequality mean? Is it simply a value-free observation of wealth strata by percentages? There has always been a disparity between the wealthiest and the rest in all societies more advanced than hunter gatherering. In fact, finding evidence of wealth stratification in an archaeologic dig implies a settled agricultural polity. So, ever since the neolithic age there has been wealth inequality. There is also physical strength inequality. Of course there is. But can we speak of Physical Strength Inequality in capital letters as a proper noun phrase? Physical Strength Inequality: what to do? WTF you ask? “I did not know that was a problem” you might add. It became one as soon as the caps appeared. OH, Physical Strength Inequality, that is indeed troubling. What to do? 
How much inequality between the richest person and the poorest person is tolerable? Or is it to be a metric (another cool word) like the wealthiest 1% vs the poorest 1%. Or the wealthiest 25% versus the poorest 25%. Or the wealthiest 50% vs the poorest 50%? Who is to say? Why is it presumably wrong for their to be wealth gradients in society? Are there not gradients of intelligence, ambition, industriousness, willingness to delay gratification? Of course there are. So why is your term a term that needs a video, a comment, a prescription, a revolution etc. 
Is this the upshot of a beneficent society that protects the poorer members from abject 3rd world poverty? IOW from charitable care of the poorer members comes the new demand for equality of wealth. What guttersnipe whining.

PAY CHECK FAIRNESS: Another Civil “Right”


“Paycheck Fairness”
All this stems from the presumption that all exchanges of labor, or goods and money is within the purview of the Government. And said Government is careful to forbid barter or alternative monetary systems.
This is one of the foul fruits of the acceptance of the means to a noble end. The Civil Rights Acts introduced the concept that the Federal Government has the authority to force all private exchanges of goods and services to comply with its rules.
“Oh, but the terrible racism of the Jim Crow south required the Federal Government to intrude.” The people who argued for the principles of Federalism, i.e. strict restriction of Federal authority to only the explicitly defined powers given it by the Constitution, were marginalized as being “racist” and “bigots”.
This in retrospect was the beginning of the Long March of the Left. From the default position that private property was sacrosanct, and that the right to freely associate with whomever one wishes, we have been nudged step by step to a Statist Tyranny. At every step, those who opposed the march were called “racist, and bigot”.
The merits of the argument were never addressed, because it was “obvious” that the principled defense of limited Constitutional government was “code” for Racism. And of course the Leftist Intellektchuals were possessed of the code book.
So, here we are! The Federal Government acts as though it alone owns the privilege to buy and sell everything. It requires the sole use of their fiat Monopoly money. (“Monopoly” not in the sense of toy, or play money based on arbitrary rules to a game, which in part is true, but in the actual meaning of having no competitive form of exchange.)
We have stepwise come to accept the premise that the Federal Government has the right to enforce its arbitrary or even democratically chosen policy over the private economic arrangements of every single person! We need to break the Federal Government’s ability to enforce its monopoly over money.

The Third Way: Organic Grassroots Social Cohesion vs. Statism or Anarchy

France has long been in the business of legislating cultural activities. This is most apparent in its laws concerning keeping the French language “French”. Unlike most of the world, France creates strange new French words, rather than adapt the global/ English name for most new technical terms. 
Let us Libertarians be consistent. There are those who claim to be Libertarian, yet are all too glad to use the power of the State when it suits their purpose. I personally think that Islamic practices in regard to most everything are abhorrent. Yet, if there is no coercion involved, the State has no legitimate role in regard to dress codes. Yes, we accept the cultural norms against public nudity and agree that laws in this regard have by virtue of ancient custom a basis for legitimacy. And, if security becomes the issue, for instance, suicide bombers cloaked in burqas, that can also be a legitimate State interest. The would be tyrants frame the question as having only two possible answers: anarchy or statism.
But: To continue in our republican form of government we must remain a people of moral character, in the Judaic-Christian tradition. As in most cases there is often a third way. In the past, the 3rd way has often been the Anglo-American Way. A more natural way to maintain societal cohesion is to allow organic interpersonal power to naturally constrict the the circle within which “normality” is defined.. This, however, requires a society that has the self-assurance necessary to reject the notion of moral relativism. It requires a society in which nonconformists risk being ostracized. And one in which social sanctions have real teeth. Playground “bullying” and kids being “made-fun-of” are the mechanisms by which societies resist change, organically, not politically. This is (was, alas) the Anglophone Way. We read how the British Empire was founded by men who grew up as boys in Public School who bullied and were bullies. No, not a pretty picture, but when seen in the perspective of other cultures’ rites of male passage, actually quite tame! The purpose of societies having male rites of passage is to establish a generally agreed upon range of behaviors considered to be normal, and to be specific enough as to allow a sense of self vs non-self in the society as a whole. When non-self is detected, it is the military-aged males that become wary, and often dangerous. This is a natural organic characteristic of human culture, and is analogous to the immune system in an individual. Despite the New Age attack on masculinity in the West, the Rest have not been keeping pace. No, I’m afraid Ivan, Abdul, and Pedro have grown up in “backward” macho cultures. Our demasculinized school marm culture has eroded that natural immunity to the point where our society is essentially immunodeficient! Our elites have attempted to indoctrinate our boys into accepting that sports ought not be about winning, but about cooperating. And there is always Ritalin for the would-be future alpha-males. The attempts at eradicating or taming the testosterone ballsy male youths by our liberal education and media have created an entire generation of young men devoid of the sense of natural healthy empowerment. Instead, we now have the vision of hyper-masculine caricatures in Urban Hip Hop Bling paraphernalia treating their ‘ho’s like commodities. (But we wink at the not quite acknowledged creation of the stereotyped “shrewd street-wise” woman who uses the brainless testosterone crazed male to buy her conspicuous wealth signifiers.)  Or the caricature of young White men, privileged to booze it up in frat house culture a la “Animal House.
The French/Continental/European/Catholic way of control is through legislating behaviors; much like the Muslim way, though of course the European behaviors legislated are more enlightened. 
We need to get back our own sense of identity, that we are heirs to a Great Civilization: The Anglosphere, the English-Speaking World, and we ought not rein in our boys for they are our own organic natural immune system. I am not encouraging physical bullying, but merely considering a second look at the old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.” Too often we have over- protective parents and lawyer-phobic schools forbidding the name-calling that might make that Burqa, or Turban, or Fez, or Viking Helmet wearer hesitate and decide whether that it is on that hill he (or she) wants to fight.  This allows for an organic social cohesion without the meddlesome micromanaging of the European and Muslim societies.