You are here

Democracy in America

What does it mean that the leader of the Senate Democrats plans to oppose John Roberts because of insufficient demonstrated commitment to “Democrats’ core causes, racial and gender equality”? Apparently, that (1) people, especially sexually normal white men, abuse others if left to themselves, so (2) a comprehensive system of supervision backed by force is needed to keep them from doing so, but (3) elected officials, like Senator Reid himself, can’t be trusted to be aggressive enough, so (4) it’s a matter of overriding political, social and moral importance to make sure that a small unelected committee serving for life and with unlimited legal powers (i.e., the Supreme Court) is committed to use its unlimited legal power to protect the abused and oppressed from their fellow citizens.

Does that make any sense at all? Why do the Democrats call themselves “Democrats” if they think self-rule is such a catastrophe? If bigotry is so pervasive, how does “civil rights” get to be such a sacred cow? Do all the bigots insist on it? And why does such a view of the world mean having a “big heart”?

Share/Save

Comments

The log entry makes an excellent point (several, actually). At one time, say during the mid-fifties, automatic suspicions in regard to the likelihood of fair treatment of races and sexes (“gender and racial equality”) meted out by a judge were reserved for candidates with some sort of blemish in their backgrounds of a kind that might reasonably arouse concerns. But here’s a candidate with no such blemishes in his background, yet the automatic suspicion is the same as if there were. In other words the new attitude is, as the log entry notes, that sexually-normal white men without blemish in their backgrounds abuse others if left to themselves—which never used to be the attitude. Such an outlook is highly perverse to say the least. It denies and advocates against normalness, both at the same time. It’s got to be changed back to the way it used to be, obviously. The other thing is, and this is related, who says adherence to modern Dem-Party notions of “gender and racial equality” amounts to fair treatment of races and sexes? There’s evidence of the reverse, in fact: adherence to such notions can in some instances amount to supporting what harms races and sexes.
________________________

Long live free Flanders!

________________________

Here’s Thrasymachus’s initial reaction to the announcement of Pres. Bush’s new Supreme Court nominee. An hour or two ago I heard Sean Hannity interviewing legal analyst Mark Levin on Bush’s choice of Attorney Miers, and he, Levin, wasn’t pleased at all. Hannity said that after interviewing Levin he was going to go on and interview Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ (the American Center for Law and Justice, a normal organization that supports normalness when it, normalness, gets attacked by outfits like the ACLU) later in the program but I didn’t get to hear that. (Sekulow, who is generally excellent, was said by Hannity to view this nomination favorably, unless I misheard him.) All I can say is, Bush is in no way a “conservative” and if he is one, I am in no way a “conservative.” This nomination is … well, what can one say, given that a member of the Bush family is in power? We all knew it was coming, didn’t we? The next one was going to be either Gonzo or someone else atrocious. Once again this president has lived up to every expectation of him.
________________________

Long live free Flanders!

________________________