A distinction with a difference

See, Kevin is Williamson probably one of my doppelgangers, especially now that I go with very short hair and a beard thing.  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417878/what-didnt-happen-next-kevin-d-williamson  You listen to his podcast btw, and he doesn’t come off that crabby.  Also has an odd (at least you’d think for him) liberal uptalk speech cadence…. Says ‘you knoooow’ like a valley girl…  But anywho, his thoughts are aligned with mine, he thinks it’s quite OK the Geller endeavor baited these guys into getting themselves killed.  He also thinks Geller is a ‘nasty piece of work’ which is something I was putting my finger on.  As far as the big picture questions, I think we should discern this:  1.  Free speech is preeminent such that there is no blame to be laid at speakers for whatever calamitous externalities there are from their speech…fire in a crowded theater may be different, but there is not a circumstance where you get to take arms because you’re offended.  None.  2.  The Hebdo writers are on higher moral ground than Geller, being professional writers and commentators who publish a magazine for their speechifying.  It’s to say they are almost impeachable, and they are not provocateurs actually, cuz that’s what they do.  3.  Geller is a provocateur.  The ‘free speech’ festival was kind of a dick move, and antagonistic.  Still, she’s not really to be blamed… much.  I’d lay no less than like 95% of the blame on the shooters.

Jots with dots

I agreehttp://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/obamacare-working-poor  I still have my beefs obviously, but….ya know I had rigorous enough bible study as a youth, but I was recalcitrant, was not receptive to Biblical wisdom while also not paying attention.  I’m not an attention payer in lectures.  Fairly lefty Catholic church at the time, at least such that the youth Catechists were very anti-Cold War and very peace and love.  Anyway, I think it’s about coveting, and what I missed about coveting at the time that’s been integrated into my wisdom as an older man is that if you are a person of sound mind and body and making your own way you ought not covet what’s given to the needy.

I agree – http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/05/hillary_clinton_baltimore_speech_the_candidate_embraces_police_reform_and.html  I know she’s got both the 1994 Crime Bill and the 2008 campaign as baggage…. But I have some sense HRC, in tandem with the larger Democrat coalition, speaks now with some new contemplation of things that’s been achieved over the last 6 years… like marriage equality where some things have been turned on their head for reexamination.  Also to say, the politics of this also in some way negate tactics of pandering or being insincere.  I think you’re either in or out on this.  Which speaks well of her, and it mitigates my bad attitude for her.  It’s a stretch that I’d vote for her, if she ends up being this bold person at this time I might have to… but that’s probably not likely.

Chait stains:  I like Romney and was perfectly happy with him.  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/romney-angry-confused-on-mass-incarceration.html  There’s no doubt he’s real smart, and quite a good man, but he’s also a bit obtuse.

Met Council: KTLK guys hit this a couple days ago.  http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/302317111.html  … I don’t like the Dutch, they are a bit haughty what with being on the continent…Anyway, seems earnest if not a little precious.  It’s not out of the question he fulfills his responsibilities adequately.  But it’s such a subversion of norms there what with the absence of even  a nod to meritocracy… its hokier than all get out… Strib piece is a fluff piece, maybe a rim job, also ‘devoid’ in its way.  Not exactly afflicting the comfortable there.

To me it still means you don’t see a limiting principle that would prevent the state from taking all the Kulaks’ stuff.  http://theweek.com/articles/553248/bernie-sanders-socialist-what-does-that-even-mean-today No but seriously… In contemporary terms I think it’s fair to say it doesn’t literally have to mean state ownership and can extend to the pursuit of egalitarianism as enforced by the tax code.

This is not my sense:  http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/05/no-more-battering-the-batter/391991/  Not aware this is a problem really.


One thought on “A distinction with a difference

  1. pm1956

    I agree that this is a free speech issue, and that freedom of speech trumps almost everything else. Thus, it is OK to burn American flags, draw Muhammed, urinate on a crucifix, etc.

    Geller is more than a provacateur, she is deliberately putting police officers in harms way–same way that FL minister who wanted to burn the Korans was deliberately endangering US military. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should.

    And, boy, those “terrorists” were inept.

    Oh, fwiw, i thought this was a great article on ISIS:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s