Author Archives: conserveprolet

•

by Reid Fitzsimons

Earlier this summer I heard a Public Service Announcement type radio ad (noted to be paid for with Pennsylvania tax dollars) pertaining to the current concern/issue of addiction. One of the themes was that an addict should not be troubled by a sense of shame. “Shame” is very much a subjective concept and I wonder if this assertion is based upon any science, such as “double-blind studies conclusively demonstrate a 35-40% better recovery rate among addicts who don’t feel shame versus those who do.” More likely I suspect it’s something that is more comfortable and marketable to believe, or perhaps one of those precepts that has become embedded in our social psychology without any known or factual basis, such as one should drink 6-8 glasses of water a day or that Public television is commercial free. I can hear too well a refrain from the 1960s, “Don’t lay a guilt trip on me, man!” underlying the shame-free mind-set

A brief amount of research suggests the following (anti-shame) paradigm: addicts are ashamed of their addictions so they therefore continue or increase their drug intake to attenuate their sense of shame. Perhaps there is a certain amount of emotional logic (somewhat incongruous words) here, but shame (and its sibling guilt) can be an enormously powerful factor to inspire people to do the right thing, and this applies to almost all aspects of human interaction. Noting a person without a conscience cannot, by definition, feel shame, active addiction reeks terrible havoc on families and society at large. Addiction cannot and should not be viewed without compassion, but it is unquestionably selfish and deserving of some degree of shame.

Increasingly our cultural dictums have become based on a self-esteem model- everything you do is good and deserving of a trophy. Of course there are some vivid exceptions so this, for example, no amount of shame is too much in regards to cigarettes, and the paradox that expressing an opinion that shame is justified, especially in matters of sexual behavior, is to be viewed as shameful. Excessive exuberance for shame and guilt are likely counterproductive, but the choice need not be between the Scarlet Letter and “everything you do is wonderful.” In general things done in moderation are more successful than things done in extremes, and a moderate amount of shame experienced by an addict is probably more therapeutically effective than none. Perhaps the officials that decide to spend tax money on PSAs should differentiate between what makes people feel good as compared to what is efficacious.

•

“Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it.”     George Costanza

by Reid Fitzsimons

Sometimes it’s good fun to listen to politicians lying. The idea that, “They all do it,” really does have some basis and certainly isn’t anything new. Does our current President lie? Of course! Anytime he proposes a new program and talks about the many wonderful benefits to be reaped, with never any downside, he’s lying. Did our immediate past President, Obama, lie? Probably even more so than Trump. We know they are lying, of course, and usually they know it too, at least we hope so because if not we’ve elected people who are delusional. Kind of a paradox.

Back in 2008 the voters of California were presented with and approved a proposition for a high-speed rail system between San Diego and San Francisco with an extension to Sacramento- transportation and environmental nirvana for the masses. Promises were made in terms of speed, safety, completion dates, costs, passenger numbers, yada, yada. Of course all he benchmarks have proven elusive- the original 33 billion for the major LA to San Francisco portion has been revised repeatedly and now sits somewhere between 65 billion and 100 billion and completion dates keep slipping, slipping into the future. Did Gov. Jerry Brown and the high-speed rail cheerleaders believe the lies? They are so emotionally and economically vested in this project there is likely no way out, so their only option is to keep consciously lying and perhaps start believing their own BS.

...continue reading →

• 1 Comment

•

   

by Reid Fitzsimons

I have no recollection who spoke at my high school graduation (1976) but I do recall that a former Vice- President, Hubert Humphrey, spoke at my oldest brother’s ceremony (’71) and, if nothing else, I learned that famous and influential people can be exceptionally long-winded and boring.

With that said…have you read Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men?  It’s meaningful if not great, though it is made better because it’s relatively short.  To me the most poignant scene was not the climactic one, where George shot Lenny in the back of the head so that he would be spared the turmoil he was about to endure, but the scene involving the used-up old guy who had nothing left in his life but his equally old dog.  Some of the young ranch hands, with nothing better to do at the moment, began telling the old guy he should put the dog out of his misery, that the dog was smelly and in pain and they would be doing something merciful, notwithstanding that there was really nothing wrong with the dog except being old.  In reality the young guys were just trying to find a moment of cruel entertainment and, having coerced assent from the old man, they walked the dog out of the bunkhouse and the now grieving old man, in tears, heard the shot ring in the distance.

I suggest there are three characteristics most worth aspiring to in life, though I’m not entirely sure how I came up with these.  The first is kindness, of which one requirement, I suppose, is the absence of cruelty.  Though I’m pretty sure I’ve witnessed more suffering than the vast majority of Americans, most of what I know of horrible cruelty people do to others comes from reading and studying- part of a true education is to learn about things you might never experience but nevertheless are able to interpret correctly.  Hence, a truly educated and enlightened person will not, for example, throw out the accusation of “Nazi” every time they encounter someone who disagrees with them, which seems to be a fad these days.

...continue reading →

• 3 Comments

•

by Reid Fitzsimons

"We saw one of these while joining  XXX's dad at his church, Spring Mount Mennonite. I'm sorry to learn that support for this sentiment is low among American evangelical Christians. To neighbors from East and Central Africa I would add: Bila kujali ninyi mnatoka wapi, tunafurahi ninyi ni majirani yetu."

Hi XXX:

I’m going to make a long commentary in response to the above brief comment you posted on Facebook regarding a sign you saw at a Mennonite church.

Hebrews 1:5 states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? The (unknown) author of Hebrews is referring here to Jesus, and using quotes from the Jewish Bible to establish that the provenance and authenticity of Christ comes from the Jewish fathers and, hence, offers Scriptural reassurance to Jews who had converted to Christianity. Looking at one source of this quote, that being 2 Samuel 7:13-14, we see:  “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” Again, this alone could reasonably be interpreted as referring to Christ. However, if the full passage is read we find: 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

To me this is clearly a reference to David/Solomon, not Jesus, and even if an argument is made that this passage is foretelling the coming of the Kingdom of Christ, it allows for the imperfection of Christ (“When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men…”). In other words Jesus could, potentially at least, be a sinner, which is doctrinally anathema to most Christians. So is the author of Hebrews attempting to pull a bait and switch, or did he or she truly believe 2 Samuel 7:13-14 pertained to Jesus? I suspect literacy rates at the time were universally very low and access to Scripture extremely limited, so who could disagree with the author of Hebrews 2,000 years ago?

...continue reading →

• 
      
Churchill surveying bomb damage during the Blitz, Barack Obama playing golf

by Reid Fitzsimons

"There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved (Barack Obama, Oct. 2016).”

A lot of people yearn to be viewed as serious and reasonable. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but there is a difference between being perceived or described as reasonable versus actually being so. That’s why it’s a hoot to watch some Republican politicians abandon their deepest held beliefs as they seek out ephemeral accolades of being “moderate,” or “bi-partisan,” from a media outlet. Being described as “he’s willing to cross the isle to get things done” is like a dog getting his tummy rubbed to certain Republicans, who proudly think to themselves, “I’m a reasonable person; they really like me!” Curiously, Republicans never seem to wonder why they have to do all the congressional and ideological aisle crossing.

The reason for this, however, is really quite simple: like morality, “reasonableness” is increasingly a product of relativity, and certainly since the 1960s the leftist progressive culture has been empowered to define the parameters. Hence, someone holding what had been a perfectly understandable position on a issue, say supportive of marriage and family integrity as the best foundation for children, is now a racist and/or misogynist, considering the alarming rate of black kids raised without fathers (lots of white kids as well). Feminism, an influential offspring of progressivism long ago decreed that fathers aren’t necessary, but outside of urban chic and manorial affluence with nannies, tutors, and upscale daycares, kids of single-parent families tend to do poorly where the actual world is found. Americans in general, and some Republican politicians in particular, will readily contort themselves and their moral beliefs to avoid being labeled “racist,” “phobic,” or whatever, even if the accusing person is a talentless celebrity or 19 year-old rich college kid sipping on her $5 cappuccino, smart phone always in hand.

...continue reading →

•

Hillary Clinton displays physical affection for her dear friend and benefactor Harvey Weinstein

by Reid Fitzsimons

“Hey everyone, I just wanted to say thanks. Thanks for your feminism, for your activism, and all I can hope is you keep up the really important, good work,” said Clinton. (She was then prompted off-camera) and added,  “And let me just say, this is directed to the activist bitches supporting bitches, so let’s go.”     Hillary Clinton, Jan. 2018

What a strange and perverse thing is modern feminism, full of contradictions and inconsistencies, in ways almost incomprehensible to a logical and thoughtful mind. Why would they demand girls and women not be viewed sexual objects then endlessly sexualize girls and women through their vanguard publications such as Cosmo and Vogue? Why would feminists proclaim goals of empowerment and equality on one hand then foster a mindset of helplessness and dependency upon bureaucracy and regulation? There is an explanation but it requires an understanding that what the feminist elite want is opposite their stated objectives.

To fully comprehend this it has to be realized that modern feminism is an entity Of, By, and For elite white women. Nancy Pelosi, Cecil Richards (outgoing president of Planned Parenthood), Lena Dunham, Elizabeth Warren, Miley Cyrus, Barbara Streisand, Kirsten Gillibrand, Barbara Mikulski and, of course, the Holy of Holies, Hillary Clinton. That’s a lot of rich white ladies in a sampling of the well-known and well-coiffed. Sure there are non-white females who are permitted to be guests in the club, who make for great optics, but the heart and soul is white.

...continue reading →

•

    

by Reid Fitzsimons

Robert Casey, Jr is the senior senator from Pennsylvania. He has a name you might know in that his late father was a former governor of PA and one of the last truly Pro-Life Democrats, a belief and position which is now incompatible with being a Democrat. His son the senator, whose qualifications are pretty much limited to the fact he is the son of a revered figure, lamely claims he is Pro-Life but this is fully contradicted by his actions. Why he feels the need for this pretension is not entirely clear. Certainly he’s aware there is an ethnic/Catholic voter demographic that wants to believe his utterances (Casey is one of those Catholics that rejects much of the church doctrine but enjoys the wafer and wine part), but I wonder if some deeper psychology is involved. Perhaps some Daddy issue- “I'd like to be a good boy, but if I do what is right the celebrities and hip media won’t let me be in their cub” kind of thing.

Hypocrisy is an inevitable frustration we encounter in life; it is especially annoying when it originates with our elected elites and when it is effective in terms of re-election, etc. In Sen. Casey’s case, his undying support of Planned Parenthood combined with his faux Pro-Life position makes one almost appreciate Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” sloganeering. Below is a letter sent to Casey’s senate e-mail address with three possible outcomes: no response (likely), a meaningless form letter response (likely), or a thoughtful reasoned argument (awaiting the cow to jump over the moon).

...continue reading →

•

by Barry King

(Reviewer’s note: The Calvin and Hobbes Barry mentions refers not to the characters of the well known comic strip but to John Calvin, the somewhat theocratic theologian of Reformed Christianity from 500 years ago, and Thomas Hobbes, the social/political philosopher of 450-some years ago who was known for his book Leviathan and the concept of a “social contract.” Note the characters of the comic strip were named after the real Calvin and Hobbes.)

The modern debate about human nature goes back to Calvin & Hobbes, who asserted that natural (uncivilized) humans were totally depraved (The T in the Calvinist TULIP), and their lives were nasty, brutish, and short (from Leviathan), v. Rousseau, after it popped into his head without evidence, that the lives of savages were peaceful, easy, happy and idyllic, because, he thought, they were naturally and intrinsically good people (until "civilization" comes along and ruins them). Rousseau's view prevailed in France, informed the French Revolution, and that POV difference has been one of the most fundamental disagreements between the left and the right every since.

If there had been a "#metoo" campaign centuries ago, echoed by women all over the world, leading to a widely-held hypothesis that "all men are potential rapists", Calvin & Hobbes would have said, "well, yes, of course they are" while Rousseau would have asserted a more nuanced view, that sexual freedom was natural and therefore really cool (while assigning his own several illegitimate children to be raised by Hillary Clinton's proverbial peaceful, easy, happy and idyllic "village").

So here I sit trying to work out how and why the current iteration of "#metoo", and the associated widespread warlock hunts in Hollywood, academia, and Congress, seem to be coming mostly from the left. Human nature itself is not changing, so other things must be changing. The left now seems to be kind of saying to the right "OK we will join you in such moralistic crusades", while deploying Saul Alinsky's principle of holding the enemy to his own standards ("OK we're crucifying Franken, so you have to crucify Moore", with the tactical twist of saying, after Moore is dead, "oops, maybe we won't crucify Franken after all.")

If we date the current "sexual revolution" to the 1960s: is 50 years really enough time to rediscover the ancient notion that even if sexual freedom is natural, it's not necessarily really cool? I would have thought it would take longer than that, but maybe high tech accelerates social evolutionary processes.

•

by Reid Fitzsimons

We’ve had the pleasure and honor of being friends with a remarkable young person, now 41 or 42, for 10 years. She is a very accomplished professional and makes good money but lives frugally in an inner city area. She spends much if not most of her money mentoring and supporting young woman “of color,” both in the US and in poor countries. She is the type of person who would, and in fact has, put everything on hold and travel to the a third word country to help someone in crisis. She seeks no fanfare whatsoever and, it should be noted, is able to do what she does largely because the expensive tastes to which we are so accustomed do not interest her.
A number of years ago she expressed some frustration with one of her girls, perhaps 15 or 16, because she was doing poorly in school and was functionally illiterate. Reading was not important to her because, “Reading is for white people” she said. That is a significant and even tragic statement and mentality, obviously, but not the subject of this article (recall that one goal of slave owners was prohibiting literacy among their chattel). Several years later I asked our friend how this particular girl was doing. She replied she’s doing well and going to college. My response was predictable, an “oh great, so she buckled down and learned to read.” To which she replied her girl never really became literate, but “everyone knows the college she’s attending isn’t a real college.” Exposing my own naiveté at the time, I have to admit I didn’t realize there were colleges that weren’t real.

...continue reading →

•

       

by Barry King

Progressive dinosaur Dan Rather penned emotional poetry about tax policy, which as of now has been liked by 80000 facebookers and shared by 50000 of them and commented on by perhaps hundreds of thousands. To see what a post or a tweet is actually doing and how and why, the thing to do is skim the comments, and my skimming of the comments on this one, as far as I got, shows that Rather is reaching only people who already agree with him at a rate of close to 100%

Which means, he is accomplishing nothing toward bridging America's political divide. He is "preaching to the choir" in an echo chamber, which is what he has been doing (and destroying his originally brilliant journalism career in the process) for about the last 20 years of an (at least) 47-year-long career now, and probably longer, I just mention that number because I myself remember reading him since 1972, at which time I agreed with him.

...continue reading →