Progressivism

• 2 Comments

•

bortion

by Reid Fitzsimons

Somewhere in the early 1980’ I switched from being pro-abortion to pro-life. I wasn’t any kind of firebrand pro-abortion activist, just one of the tens of millions of Americans who didn’t want to be troubled by thinking too hard. It took no great empathetic powers to comprehend an unexpected pregnancy can put a severe damper on life’s plans and, as Americans, we didn’t and don’t suffer interruptions to our ambitions or life-styles easily. Additionally, the feminists and social justice people of the early 80s, personified especially by Planned Parenthood, assured us we weren’t talking about ending a life but that abortion was more akin to picking boogers out of our noses. I recall three terms The Great Progressive Minds used when describing that troublesome entity residing in the uterus- a blob of tissue, a clump of cells, and, for the more intellectual among the mindless masses, the products of conception. What person in their right mind could possibly be opposed to sucking out a blob of tissue? It would be like being against hacking up a big loogie.

At this time I was a PA (Physician Assistant) student in Cleveland and I certainly possessed a cursory knowledge of embryology, so academically I knew the blob of tissue paradigm wasn’t entirely accurate, but everyone wants symbols and terminology to comport with their worldview; it allows us to not be troubled in our beliefs. During the clinical year I did a month-long inpatient gynecology rotation at hospital downtown, one that frequently did abortions. No problem for me, and I was perfectly fine with observing and assisting. Assuming most people can’t really envision the procedure, it is not one that requires high-level surgical skill. In other words, abortionists may be wealthy but are unlikely to be world-class physicians. Essentially a hollow plastic tube (curette) is passed through the cervix while attached to a suction machine and, with a little scraping and vacuuming of the uterus, viola’! problem solved. The thing is the suction tubing is transparent, and I happened to notice the promised blob being sucked into oblivion looked quite a bit like little arms and legs, with feet and fingers and things. Was it possible the progressives and good people at Planned Parenthood had engaged in a bit of deception?

...continue reading →

•

by Barry King

I have Mennonite relatives who travel all over North America without paying for hotel rooms, by staying in the homes of a network of relatives of relatives or friends of friends. In so doing, they fail to support the hotel industry and perhaps contribute to slow job growth in that sector. I have Amish relatives who, when they suffer fire damage to a barn, will accept the volunteer help of neighbors for rebuilding, instead of hiring unionized construction workers for that job. In so doing, they take jobs away from those unionized workers. Further: the working conditions at the Amish Barn raising might possibly be OSHA-non-compliant. The Amish also plow their fields with mule teams instead of tractors, and drive horse-drawn carriages on the roads, instead of cars.

It wonders me (that’s a Pennsylvania Dutch phrase) how I should understand Anabaptist attitudes toward innovation. Anabaptists until very recently have been counter-cultural in a variety of ways, which is kind of innovative, but on the other hand, plowing with a mule team in the 21st century seems old-fashioned. Now comes another data point: modern internet-based ride sharing via Uber looks a lot like “Mennonite-Your-Way” travel arrangements and like the Amish approach to barn-raising, and the Uber economic model is considered innovative rather than reactionary, whereas, the growing backlash against it looks pretty darn reactionary. Sixty years after Bill Buckley coined the phrase, who is it now who is standing athwart history and yelling “Stop!”? (Hint: read Hillary’s recent speech in which she scolded Uber, without mentioning it by name. If the guy in Seinfeld who withheld soup was a “Soup Nazi”, does that mean Hillary is now an “Uber Nazi”? Just wondering...) Bill Clinton wanted to build a bridge to the 21st century, which at the time was a forward-looking idea. Now here we are, and Hillary apparently wants to build the same bridge, but she plans on using it to go the other way.

So why exactly is Hillary staking out a position as an Uber Nazi? Well, she counts on union support, and the unions hate Uber, and she likes tax revenues and regulation, while Uber drivers and customers tend to dislike those things. How much do unions and government regulators hate the Uber-style economy? In France, Hillary’s fellow travelers (mobs of taxi drivers) “went full Luddite”, destroying Uber cars, and the French government joined them by arresting Uber managers.

Bottom line: the fundamental difference between the Amish, the Mennonites, and the Uber drivers on the one hand, v. the Uber Nazis on the other is this: the former are content to do their economics via free contracts voluntarily entered, while leaving the rest of the world also free to do whatever they want, whereas, the Uber Nazis want to impose their preferred models on other people by means of government coercion or violence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421134/hillary-uber-economy-speech-sharing-economy-2016

•

Revelers ride in a float during the gay pride parade in Salt Lake City, Utah, June 3, 2012. Over 300 active Mormons and more than 5,000 members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community with their supporters marched in the parade as part of the Utah Pride Festival. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart (UNITED STATES - Tags: SOCIETY) ORG XMIT: SLC07

 

by Reid Fitzsimons

Notwithstanding whatever newspaper it was that declared an end to commentary on homosexual marriage, the consequences of the recent Supreme Court paean to love will reverberate for years to come, and it won’t be limited to fabulous rainbow light shows at the White House and guys and girls gaily prancing about in leather thongs.

But before considering the consequences, I admit I’m a little confused about this Supreme Court decision. Homosexual marriage has essentially been legal for decades, and any residual barriers were correctly deconstructed in 2003 with the Lawrence versus Texas decision disallowing anti-sodomy laws. That is, of course, if marriage is defined as an association of people characterized by love (with an implication of the sexual kind as compared, for example, to the love of a good cigar, except in the case of Bill Clinton) and enduring commitment. Additionally nothing has prevented homosexuals from enjoying the more superficial ceremonial trappings, be it flowing wedding gowns or an expensive reception adorned with massive floral arrangements. Even securing an ordained but pretend Christian minister to bless the wedding has been no more difficult than catching Hillary Clinton in a lie. Really- does anyone actually know someone who cares how people associate themselves on a private and personal level? The concept of something being nobody else’s business is in many ways one of the underpinnings of freedom.

...continue reading →

•

white-privilege

by Reid Fitzsimons

A privileged child is a child who has at least one parent willing to suspend prior self-indulgences. This can run the gamut from drinking, clubbing, hanging out with friends, partying, or whatever past enjoyments prove to be incompatible with nurturing parenthood, and to do so without resentment. A child of privilege has at least one parent committed to reading to him or her everyday, letting the child know they are loved, and willing to say “no” more often than “yes.” If this doesn’t transcend ethnic or racial differences then so much the worse for society as well as the children involved, especially because it doesn’t require unobtainable resources to say to say “no” and “I love you.”

...continue reading →

•

coexist

by Reid Fitzsimons

Background:

Jarrod is in his early 30s and in a heteronormative marriage to Mindy, also in her early 30s. They are both products of middle-class suburbia and college-educated. Actually they met in college, where she studied art and computer technology and he eventually obtained a master’s in communications. Somewhat to his surprise, Jarrod transformed his college degree into a job with a tax-exempt group, eventually making a salary in the low-$100s with the title of Communications Director. The organization he works for has something to do with “advocacy” in a variety of areas including domestic violence, gender and race preferred small business opportunities, and community development. He discovered he has a knack for interacting with state and local politicians and has captured quite a bit of grant money for his organization. Part of him wonders why their offices are located in a nice high-rent area and the executive level salaries (including his) are not insubstantial, considering they are ostensibly advocating for the disenfranchised, but generally he convinces himself he is worth what he makes. ...continue reading →

•

blck lives mtter girls

by Reid Fitzsimons

Several months go, when the BLM sentiment was all the rage, progressives climbed over themselves to express their heartfelt commitment to the cause, lest they be discovered as the first one to have stopped applauding. As the hapless president of Smith College ($62,000 per year to attend), Kathleen McCartney, attempted to hop on the bandwagon of compassion and outrage, the poor thing committed quite a faux paux. In her rush to be hip and stand in solidarity with the huddled masses she ejaculated an e-mail declaring, “All Lives Matter.” Much like a malodorous emission of flatulence at a Boston wine tasting, there was brief pause as the proper reaction was considered. This was followed in short order by expressions of hurt and offense so dear to our modern educated youths: “It felt like she was invalidating the experience of black lives” one Smith student was quoted as saying; “It minimizes the anti-blackness of this the current situation” opined another. Needless to say Ms. McCartney apologized profusely, sycophantically acknowledging that, “As members of the Smith community we are struggling, and we are hurting.” She promised the soothing tonics of a new Chief Diversity Officer and renewals of social justice commitments. Perhaps the most embarrassing aspect of her statement, “All Lives Matter,” was that it came precariously close to sounding like the words of some Pro-Life nut job. ...continue reading →

• 1 Comment

•

by Barry King

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416390/whos-really-showing-courage-indiana-maggie-gallagher

This is a waypoint on the path of the devolution of the USA towards becoming a police state. I heard some of this low-information hysteria first-hand on the car radio while driving through Indiana recently, in a snowstorm. Putting "religious freedom" inside scare quotes like that, in order to condemn it and suppress it, moves the USA away from the principles of the American revolution and toward those of the French. Diderot said "Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest." He would have gladly joined the current campaign from the American left against Indiana's perfectly reasonable Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

...continue reading →

• 1 Comment

•

religious sign

by Reid Fitzsimons

Years ago, as a teenager and young adult, I was a secular atheist. I was from the semi-obnoxious school of atheism as compared to the aggressively obnoxious one, the latter being quite common today. Back in the mid-1970’s it was great fun to get plastered and/or smoke a little weed and stay up into the night with friends watching and mocking the 700 Club or PTL Club or whatever was on. I’m not being facetious- it was fun. Though I haven’t done any doobie for over 35 years and rarely drink, I still enjoy watching and mocking the Christian charlatans on TV, and there are plenty of them.

Somewhere into that coveted 30 to 45 year-old range of robust adulthood and then into middle age I began to see the light, as it was, and converted to agnosticism. Actually there was neither a blinding light nor was I knocked off a donkey, but rather life experience happened and perhaps a little wisdom seeped in. The bedrock arguments of atheism, the truism that many Christians are hypocrites, that many wars have been fought and many have been killed in the name of Christianity, if God exists why is there so much suffering, etc certainly have appeal, but mostly to a thoughtful adolescent pondering the mysteries of life. Eventually, however, if one isn’t too beholden to their teenage worldview and they mature, hypocrisy is found to be pretty universal, there is lots of killing done in the name of other beliefs along with the more base things in life (i.e. money, power, sex), bad things happen because there are bad people, and maybe, sadly, suffering just is an accompaniment to worldly existence. ...continue reading →

• 4 Comments

•

rodeo us flg

by Reid Fitzsimons

Recently Rudy Giuliani suggested Barak Obama doesn’t love America, and predictable outrage and fireworks ensued. So, was he right or does Barak Obama love America? We can answer that question with a parable of sorts. A sensitive young woman gives herself sexually to an older man. Once he has been satisfied she anxiously asks if he loves her. He hesitates for only a moment then replies, “Of course I love you, now what’s your name again?” To this guy love is part of his thoughts as much as contemplation over whether Pluto is a planet or a lesser body, but he does love what he can take from her. The concept of love of country is more than foreign to progressives like Obama, it is anathema.

Love of country evokes images and feelings that appeal to rednecks and malleable yokels- freedoms and remembrances of those who died defending them, jets flying overhead in formation before a sporting event, patriotic songs. Love of country involves a chill going up one’s spine when the flag passes by and a choked up sensation when hearing the words of the founders when played against the backdrop of certain music. Ronald Reagan, with a lowly bachelors degree from a small regional college, loved America.

Progressives, especially one as sophisticated and nuanced as our president, apportion love differently. While nobody can claim they don’t love their children and perhaps even their spouses as much as anyone, their love is otherwise reserved for higher level entities- elegant dining, fine wine, celebrities, expensive clothing, exotic vacations, power and, of course, themselves. ...continue reading →

•

Blues Brothers 4

by Reid Fitzsimons

During the 2012 Democratic convention a delegate from NY, Julia Rodriguez, fantasized in a video interview that she would like to kill Mitt Romney (“If I see him I would like to kill him”). An internet search for this incident revealed minimal follow-up, mostly that a Secret Service representative said, “We are aware of it,” and the agency is “taking the appropriate follow-up steps.” Beyond this the internet trail went cold so presumably Delegate Rodriguez returned to the Bronx uneventfully and is not in a Federal slammer subsisting on multigrain bread and Evian bottled water (for disclosure purposes I should mention I worked in a Federal Prison from 1982-1986).

Conservatives, and perhaps other sentient beings, hear of this type of thing and see a dichotomy. If a Republican delegate had said something similar of Obama, one could almost envision the climactic scene in The Blues Brothers as multiple SWAT teams converged on Jake and Elwood at the Cook County Assessor’s Office (the above photo if you aren't familiar with the movie). In reality it is unlikely a conservative would think such a sentiment let alone say it- while we are certainly not free of emotions of the moment we are generally constrained by the tradition of civility in discourse and rationality of thought. There are plenty of things I would like to either ask or say to our president were I to see him, but murderous fantasy is more the domain of progressives. ...continue reading →