Clearing the Cobwebs

by Deana Chadwell4/25/17
Lately, when I check the news, I feel like I’m fighting my way through a room full of cobwebs, like I’m boxing with phantoms; there are no clear, understandable positions on the left. They’re fighting, yes, but in that thrashing, flailing, windmill fashion that infuriated little boys are prone to. Liberals have no rational point to make, but they make it loudly, wearing ridiculous costumes, shouting obscenities and marching, marching, marching.  They even marched for science! Who is against science? Is science something we VOTE for? An activist Muslim woman, who is in favor of Sharia law, organized the women’s march. What?! Are we to assume that the women’s movement is now in favor of female genital mutilation and honor killings?

I’m compelled to attempt to sort this out. I’ll grant that not all Democrats are this nutty, but they all need to face the fact that many of their fellow Dems are operating in such a deep sheep-dip of cognitive dissonance that they are a danger to themselves and to others. It’s not just that the liberals oppose conservatives; they appear oppose themselves.  Perhaps it can help to lay out the contradictions in an orderly fashion.

The Top 10 Liberal Confusions

  1. Feminism can’t decide whether women are superior to men or victims of them. They can’t decide whether they’re proud of the physical capabilities of their bodies or so anxious to deny them that they have to kill their babies. They are vociferously attracted to all the trappings of Sharia in spite of its cruelty to women and young girls. Many can’t even decide if they’re women.
  2. Liberals don’t like law, but love government. (It doesn’t seem to occur to them that government is largely made up of law.) They depend on it for everything from food and shelter to protecting their egos from the onslaughts of reason. Yet, in reality, they want what they want regardless of law. In order to assuage the guilt the government schools have programmed into them, they want to flaunt the immigration laws – never mind the dangers of terrorism and drugs and disease the illegals bring with them. In order to cushion their economic, environmental, and cultural misapprehensions they are willing to close down highways, burn buildings, and silence anyone who disagrees with them. They are more than willing to shut down the Constitution because it limits government, and they are unwilling to obey the laws the Constitution allows.
  3. In fact, the left openly hates the Constitution and seeks to weaken it by making the claim that it’s a “living document,” though they clearly wish it were dead. And then they bristle if you question their patriotism. They seem unaware that what makes America America IS the Constitution; you get rid of that and this country will just be another starving sinkhole. Libs also love to hate on the Bible and Christians, yet they like to misquote scripture to justify whatever socialist nonsense they’re currently pushing, utterly ignorant that the West wouldn’t be the West without either.
  4. They feel so strongly about their spongy ideas that they commit violent acts against people and property to demonstrate the rightness of those ideas (They can’t argue their points rationally), and all while asserting that nothing is absolute and all ideas are relative. AND that violence is always bad– all the while accusing everyone else of being hateful.  How do you beat the tar out of a total stranger because you think HE’S a hater?
  5. They claim to be anti-fascist, yet support Islamists and defend their asserted right to impose their religion on others and to do so in the most heinous, barbaric ways imaginable.  It’s OK to burn toddlers alive, but Christians are horrible and hateful because we won’t bake cakes. It makes my head spin to try to think like that: violence, hate and cruelty = good; love, morality, and charity = bad. Maybe drugs need to be involved to make this doable.
  6. They see no problem in their contradictory environmental ideas. It’s okay in their world to scar an area with garbage while protesting an oil pipeline. It’s okay in their world to deplete the world’s food supply to use corn in our gasoline. It’s okay to kill birds with solar arrays and wind farms, to deplete world’s lithium supply for car batteries, to jet all over the world to wring their hands about climate change. It somehow makes sense to them to outlaw cow flatulence.
  7. They don’t like white people discriminating against blacks, but see nothing wrong with blacks being anti-white. It’s like third-grade payback.
  8. Diversity is their holy grail, but only within the liberal framework. Tolerance is the liberal virtue of virtues in spite of the fact that such a moral code puts them in the confusing position of having to support murder of babies, the torture of non-Muslims, and leaders who would starve their own people. And then they get all tangled up in the fact that they can’t/won’t tolerate anyone who points out these inconsistencies.
  9. They want to change the world – take it to a better place, but they know so little about history that they have no idea where it’s already been. It’s really hard to arrive in the right place if you don’t know where you’re starting from. This week New Orleans began taking down its historical markers as if the future will be better if we roll up the past behind us. They claim to want a better world, but turn away from all the methods mankind has been successful with in the past. They embrace the evils they claim to be against: lying, corruption, manipulation, propaganda. They champion coercion, tyranny, and taxation and have no respect for freedom. (See point 2 above.)
  10. They claim to be for the little man, but have nothing but contempt for him unless said little man has succumbed to the lure of drugs, irresponsible sex, and abject dependence on his government. Then he’s cool. Otherwise one has to have a college degree – the more expensive the better, vote Democrat, and sneer at decency. “I am a naaaasty woman!”

The America I love is a place where you call an idiot an idiot; you don’t elect, and re-elect him/her to office. The America that has shown the world what freedom can do, that has saved the world from tyranny, come to everyone’s aid in times of disaster is now becoming the baby-sitter for whiners, and the encourager of a plethora of evils. The more we give credence to this nonsensical “thinking,” the more we are in danger of imploding. I recently ran across a collection of Norman Rockwell           paintings – a family gathered at Thanksgiving, a bunch of little basketball players before a game, a profile of church-goers praying. THAT America made sense. This one doesn’t. I have the feeling that we’re being played by a master magician – keeping us all so confused with his right hand that we don’t notice that with his left hand he’s slicing Lady Liberty to pieces.

Deana Chadwell blogs at and is a writing and speech professor at Pacific Bible College in Southern Oregon.
About Author Author Archive Email • (1956 views)

Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Clearing the Cobwebs

  1. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    Nothing to add. Perfect summary. Up is down. White is black. Love is hate. The cognitive dissonance will by force fail soon.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      It is an Orewellian world and even for those who understand the consequences; Do you hear John Galt calling? Ultimately, we can influence our own little space and keep voting the bastards out of office.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    An excellent summation. One reason for their confusion can be found in Orwell’s term doublethink — the ability to believe two contradictory things simultaneously. Another can be found in the old concept of sophistry — clever argumentation without regard for truth. Aristophanes mocked this in The Clouds, and indeed liberals seem to live in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.

    One might also note the point that the late Leon Stover made about Well’s The Time Machine: that the Morlocks were the result of the failure of the upper class (who became the Eloi) to control them. As a socialist, he thought the working class should be paid well, but controlled by the authorities. Nothing has really changed in their attitudes.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned. . .
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ah, Yeats. This has happened before. The Spanish Civil War was precipitated by the collapse of the center, leading to government by rightist and leftist coalitions, neither of which could tolerate the other. And now it’s happening here. We may not be quite yet at the point of no return, but we’re close.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Timothy, I ran across that Yeats poem (didn’t know it was Yeats at the time) in season two, episode two of “Babylon 5.” There is some ancient race of dark forces gathering strength whose home is on the very outer, and largely unexplored, rim of the galaxy. G’Kar of the Narn race refers to his ancient holy book which talks about this dark race causing havoc ages ago and there are similarities between now and then. G’Kar then says to his subordinate that he may have underestimated the wisdom of earthlings and then reads this poem (part of the whole poem, anyway).

        In times such as these there does seem to be a gathering darkness. And we have cobwebs a’plenty. We should never forget who we, the logical and wise people, put in the White House.

  4. pstmct says:

    Excellent post Deana. I have another example of the cognitive dissonance of the left. Part of the march for science I believe. Bill Nye the moron guy, while talking about human sexuality said the there are two brains types; a male brain and a female brain and sometimes a boy can be formed in the womb with a female brain and a girl with a male brain and that is why we must accept the transgendered or gender disphoric, because they cannot help it, they just have the wrong brain type. Now how does that idea mesh with the leftist idea of male and female sameness; that girls playing with dolls and boys with truck is a societal construct. There is “NO” difference between the sexes! (unless that does not fit our desired argument, then the parts are not at all the same, like the brain types).
    I know the group here at ST is a very creative bunch, but even they could not make this stuff up.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Just another example of leftist cognitive dissonance, or doublethink, or sophistry. They believe — or argue — whatever is momentarily expedient.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The conservative brain strains to find coherency in all this…even if just by listing the points of incoherency. I consider myself tops in analyzing this. But at the end of the day, I have neither a solid single proximate nor ultimate cause.

      Now, that said, I find the various listings of the incoherence to be rather pointless at this point. The relevant question is: What are you going to do about it?

      Without primping ourselves up too much (after all…our side voted in Trump), we should realize we are facing a type of “nice” madness. And sometimes it’s not so nice. But both branches (the passive and the active) are on the same team, although the former is more widely known as the “useful idiot” chapter and the latter as the “true believers.”

      Remember that prior to WWI (relevant to that Yeats poem), Europe was at peace and relatively prosperous and humane. It was a good place to live. And yet they tore themselves apart.

      Why? I don’t see any easy answers to this. In America, right now, we are as prosperous, peaceful, and humane as we’ve ever been (except for abortion). But many people find current conditions intolerable.

      I see this as no less than a mental, moral, and psychological sickness. It’s an addiction to something and a deep need for something that can never be satisfied. And so the only thing left to do is lash out at the constructed villains who are, somehow, stopping the inner utopian nirvana from arising which should be the earned fruit of holding all these left wing views.

      • pstmct says:

        The why is a very easy answer, it’s called boredom. If men have no dragons to slay or bears to hunt, (metaphorically speaking), then they will lash out, all the way up to and including war.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I think there’s some truth to that, Pat. Perhaps men, much like women, are driven by the desire for drama of some type. Things being peaceful and in order is like itching powder to many.

          • pstmct says:

            Just look at what the left’s marketing theme is. No-one should have to work, no-one should be a victim of anything, no-one loses or ever feels bad about anything. Better safe than sorry, government is the only thing we all belong to, or any number of these concepts.
            Well I am sure that these things were in full force in turn of the century Europe, since they drank the socialist Kool-Aid very early on, and I cannot imagine a more boring world than to never take any chances in life or business.
            This is exactly what the left offers. People are stupid, and they “feel” that these ideas are just so nice, warm and fuzzy; but as the post points out, leftist, feminist and emasculated men, (I know saying leftist and these other attributes is redundant), are not too familiar with thinking, great at feeling, but thinking, not so much.
            But in this world they are going for, a strong man or men will rise and lead a group of natural men, a new form of useful idiots they may be, but none the less men who’s natural hunter will be used by the strong man to take what they want from the wimps and at some point the wimps will wake up, it may take a long time but it will happen.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, ISIS may not have dragons to slay or bears to hunt, but after recent events they do have boars to hunt. And reportedly they’re doing it.

          One of the later stories in Mike Resnick’s Kirinyaga stories (about a future Kikuyu utopia on an asteroid, and why it ultimately fails) deals with exactly the problem of the resulting boredom of young men — to be precise, those who otherwise would be the “best and brightest”.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            That book is available here. I sent myself the free Kindle sample. The subject seems apt: Trying to isolate oneself from change. But one review notes: “It also taught great lessons that we must move forward and stop trying to build a future from the past. We must evolve or die. Kirinyaga does it beautifully.”

            I’ll have to read the book if I ever get around to it. But there seems to be a missing piece here. We’re not to try to stay the same. And yet there are things in various cultures that are to be avoided. But no matter, we just have to keep “evolving” (aka “change for change’s sake”).

            Is there nothing objective against which to judge cultures and practices?

            Again, this was what I gleaned from reading a few reviews of the book. The book may present a more coherent vision. But then this is where we all find ourselves right now. Either hold onto the tried-and-true (or just sane) ways or go with the flow because, no matter how silly is Bruce Jenner, we must “evolve” or be left behind.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I did a lengthy review of the series long ago in FOSFAX, and didn’t know what my conclusion would be until I was well into it; my conclusion was that the narrator, the with doctor (mundumugu) Koriba, was the serpent in their Eden. His goal was to keep them in a past that never actually existed (for example, the Kikuyu were first united by — white hunter John Boyes, which he discusses in his autobographical King of the Wa-Kikuyu).

              Never mind that there were no lions or hostile tribes to defend against (this is what led to the boredom problem), and that his curses could be effective (due to the technology he hated) in a way they never were in the past (as comes up in a later story as well). In the very first story he even prepares to set up his own Mau-Mau, which didn’t exist until the 1950s.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                That gives me a better sense for the book. I think some of the reviews I read at Amazon may have had some valid (even inevitable) interpretations, steered slightly wrong if only because relatively minor themes were given major emphasis. Still, I do hope to read at least the free sample of the Kindle version soon.

                It’s interesting regarding cultural isolation that France, if you remember, at one time was hyperventilating over this desire. They were trying to keep France free of American (particularly Disney) influences. Much like Quebec (or Quebec, much like France) has laws that, at least at one time, had a goal to stand athwart globalism (international merchandising and the de facto culture of liberal Hollywood) and yell “stop.” The absurdity of this in the face of their willing cultural suicide in regards to Islam is beyond irony. I can’t think of the right word.

                We conservatives know there are some things that should be conserved. Where we are different from historical conservatism is that we are not (I should hope) trying to conserve a culture, frozen in time and resistant to any change. That simples reflects, at least partially, the valueless “conservatism” of today’s RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only, for our home audience) whose conservatism means holding onto the status quo — and certainly not resisting Leftism or trying to repair the damage it does. The Left ratchets us Leftward and the RINO’s feign a grand, historical, wisdom-of-the-ages “conservatism” by protecting, say, Obamacare and resisting any reforms…perhaps even resisting (weakly, and certainly not genuinely) further pushes from the Left.

                This whole state of affairs has corrupted not only the Republican Party but the electorate itself (thus Trump).

                So let us state that our conservatism is just peachy with iPhones, cable TV, Kindles, and LED light bulbs. We put technology (things) in a different category than people. The atom (matter) may be as pliable as Silly Putty in regards to the things you can make from it. But the human being is not Silly Putty and has a distinct nature.

                So we try to conserve, for instance, the importance of families, not only as the main and best unit for raising children, but because any force that tries to usurp the family will necessarily be a dictatorial and authoritarian one.

                And on and on. We could run down the list of timeless principles. But as for the workings inside the individual family, the conservative is mostly silent, demanding only that the children be safe, the family should be a generally loving and law-abiding one, and that there should be a mother and a father who are faithful to each other. Other than that, the details are up to the individuals. Unlike Leftism or Islam, conservatism (or Americanism) is not a totalitarian ideology. That is, it does not have a “politically correct” fine-grained demand for every little detail on how you run your life. It is liberal in this regard but conservative regarding the main structures.

                I doubt one in a thousand “conservatives” could articulate this basic American/conservative/Christian philosophy. We are now wandering in the wilderness able only, it seems, to be able to articulate our grievances.

                So we come to the main question: How does a person, who thinks there is more to his personhood than how he fits into somewhat arbitrary culture (especially if that culture has gone silly and vulgar), live a good and genuine life? Somewhere between “no man is an island” and “Bruce Jenner is ‘courageous’ for having his dick chopped off and dressing as a woman” there must be a good, creative, meaningful, and righteous path.

                As it is, the problems we are facing today in regards to the culture wars is that the Left is winning. Perhaps it is because they have a more appealing (although naive and ultimately destructive) vision of life. Perhaps it just has a better propaganda machine. Perhaps it is all that and more. But we conservatives are faced with these issues because we’re losing (and badly) the culture wars. And it is inevitable to suggest that one reason this is so is because we have not been organized (physically or philosophically). And we have not been willing to get our hands dirty to engage the enemy.

                The only force that has been willing to engage Leftism is Islam. I don’t consider their identity particularly appealing but they seem to have what it takes to remain a potent and coherent force. We conservatives lack that. To the extent that we are organized it is to get online and engage in little more than descriptive conservatism while the forces at Berkeley, for instances, are forcefully setting the agenda.

                What do we do? Where do we go? And I think most importantly, how do we not get sucked into the unhappy mindset of the forever aggrieved? I see that everywhere now, especially now amongst supposed conservatives. We’re becoming the same psychologically fragile people as those on the Left. We are way too involved in our mere politics as a source of identity. We may not be snowflakes. But I think many have been sucked into this game, genuinely unhappy and fixating on the fact that there are indeed many loony people doing some loony things in this country. I say either fix it or retire from it altogether and just learn to put this stuff into some kind of perspective.

                I’m not at the “don’t worry, be happy” stage for it’s useful to worry about some things. And happiness is not the be-all, end-all of existence. We’re much better off having good purpose which, in itself, good bring a great deal of suffering at times rather than happiness.

                Like I said, I think too many people have gotten sucked into this daily drama. We need to either fix it or fix ourselves. Doing both would be the ideal. And to some extent we have to learn to live alongside the muck without ourselves getting dirty.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I’m afraid I don’t know the answers to your concerns. We must be concerned, and be ready to do something about it, but what? This is especially true of elderly, disabled (and declining) people of ordinary means.

                As I recall, “No man is an island, complete of itself” comes from a John Donne essay, the same in which he admonished, “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” We read it in high school.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    We must be concerned, and be ready to do something about it, but what? This is especially true of elderly, disabled (and declining) people of ordinary means.

    Timothy, what we should do is create a vast bureaucracy that becomes a vehicle for make-work jobs and becoming, in the words of Reagan, “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

    While doing so, skim off 50% or more in administrative costs and then dole out this money according to political calculations, not necessity.

    If I had a dime for every healthy 50 or 60-something man walking with a cane in his hand to try to cover his fake Social Security disability.

    We have more than enough money to do the right thing. What we are lacking is people willing to do the right thing.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the later stories in Mike Resnick’s Kirinyaga stories (about a future Kikuyu utopia on an asteroid, and why it ultimately fails) deals with exactly the problem of the resulting boredom of young men — to be precise, those who otherwise would be the “best and brightest”.

    By the way, Timothy. I read the free Kindle sample of the “Kirinyaga” set of stories last night. I was tempted to buy it right then. In the meantime, I found the first two stories in the series here. I’ll read these two and then see if I’m still up for more. But it’s certainly a very intriguing setup. A guy with two advanced degrees from Yale decides to go native (literally) and setup an authentic colony for the Kikuyu race. They have a non-interference charter. The “Maintenance” people (the overseers) are uncomfortable with the practice of leaving the elderly to the hyenas. But they feel the need to intervene when the tribe’s witchdoctor, and first-person narrator of this story, strangles babies because they are born feet-first, thus signifying that they are demons. The same with the first-born of twins.

    Let’s assume these are documented practices of some tribes in Africa. I assume so. This kind of stuff would not likely be written today because it casts disfavor on a politically favored race.

    That said, you kind of feel for this guy’s project. He’s watched his way of life go extinct because of European influences. The stories so far don’t get into the details, but the overall idea is that the people have moved into cities (with all their luxuries and opportunities) and left primitive tribal life behind. But at least it was a life not of plastic and steel but living closer to the earth, etc.

    Clearly the writer is not shamelessly in love with the myth of the noble savage, not by a long shot. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

    And it leads you to think. One will likely agree with the “Maintenance” overseers that killing babies as “demons” because they were born feet-first is a barbaric practice evincing the worst elements of superstition, authentic though it may be for that culture. But what happens when the equivalent of these “Maintenance” overseers (in the choke points of our own culture such as in the media and the university) decide that it is barbaric *not* to honor and allow kids as young as five to undergo “gender” changing because that is how they say they feel?

    This is where I think we are. The “Maintenance” overseers in our culture, long drunk on their own supposed benevolent omniscience, have (oddly) inflicted our own tribe with barbaric practices (abortion, for example) while (under their doctrine of non-overseeing non-white cultures) allowing and apologizing for barbaric practices such as is common with Islam. The overseers have gone mad. They are no longer in a position to judge right and wrong. They are incapable of it.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One of the middle stories is a prequel, in which we learn about Koriba’s modern son and their inability to understand each other. The son points out that the Kenyan president is a Kikuyu (as, e.g., Jomo Kenyatta was — in fact, he was jailed for involvement with the Mau-Mau revolt). Koriba notes that if he doesn’t follow the traditional tribal practices, then he is not a (genuine) Kikuyu. The final story is set after Koriba leaves Kirinyaga because the people, in the end, decided that they didn’t want the stasis he did.

      Resnick based a lot of this on personal encounters with Kikuyu tribesmen on trips to Kenya.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There’s very interesting interaction between father and son in the first story. It ends with their parting for the last time, the father off to his colony and the son staying in modern life in Kenya. He then announces to his son that he is taking his son’s first name because the son isn’t using it. The son has gone by his middle European name that his mother had given him. This is all stated in a matter-of-fact way, but what a stab in the heart at the son.

        It will be interesting to see the explicit or implicit statement on conservatism (protection of the tradition, even bad ones) or progressivism (new for new’s sake, beholden to fads and fashion). The father seems set on a kool-aid-filled journey from the get-go. But he makes some biting points against the modernism of his son’s world.

        But the father’s argument (thus far) is not very deep. He dislikes his son’s world simply because it is different.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          That’s the first story chronologically, though in the original series it appeared later. Other than that, the writing order and the chronological order would seem to be the same. Note that the son is incapable of grasping Koriba’s point (that a Kikuyu is someone who follows the traditional ways), and Koriba can’t bring himself to explain it.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Note that the son is incapable of grasping Koriba’s point (that a Kikuyu is someone who follows the traditional ways), and Koriba can’t bring himself to explain it.

            That’s an excellent point, Timothy. One could say that wisdom starts with the ability to see outside oneself, something that is not easy, perhaps not even natural.

            The son is the prototypical progressive. Like any liberal, he cannot imagine that any other way of life is anything but abnormal by definition (for it is not progressive). It is considered to be some rude vestige from barbaric times. All right-thinking people just normally think left.

            It’s a remarkable thing that there is such an ideology that is blind to its own ideology. Surely Germans (at one time, at least) know that they are Germans, Islamists know that they are Islamists, and so on. This is proof that, like Islam, Leftism is a supremacist ideology.

            We see that in Berkeley, for example. No other thought system is to be tolerated. I wish to hell we could get the message out to the people who keep supporting these ideological thugs. But they’ve been corrupted and/or bought off.

            I’m quite sympathetic to the father’s desire to get back to his traditional culture. So what that he kills a few babies? That is a rounding error compared to the millions of abortions in the “civilized” world. That doesn’t mean I’m for the practice. But I have to state the obvious for lurkers and others who might read these words. Our culture has become such idiots.

            If the next chapter intrigues me (and I hope to get to it soon), I may just spend the twelve bucks. That seems a little pricey. But I’ve hit the wall on my Thorndyke reading. It was good while it lasted but I just can’t read any more of the sameness.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Note that the son does grasp that Koriba would like to see the jackals before leaving. Doesn’t that sounds like one of the few overlaps between a progressive and a back-to-nature traditionalist?

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Everything that is wrong with our culture is contained in this commercial.

    Because this is more-or-less a family-friendly site, I can’t tell you what I scream at the TV every time I see this. Your evaluation of said commercial will be appreciated and no doubt hilarious.

    • Anniel says:

      Brad you know how often folks who come to ST drive their cars into trees and need to be “forgiven.” It’s especially unfair when the car is new. Maybe we all need one free shot at everything?

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Annie, as closely as I can translate what I yell at the TV every time I see that stupid woman in that stupid commercial is:

        Put down your *&$% cell phone and drive you stupid *&#$.

        My favorite part of that ad is when she comes nonchalantly waddling out of the right frame on her high heals like a buffalo. She already looks the picture of irresponsibility. And then the line, “Gee….I crashed my new car into a tree and that mean insurance company raised my rates.”

        Gee….I stuck a needle in my eye and the optometrist charged me double for a pair of specially corrective lenses. I guess I should find another optometrist.

        Gee…I went swimming in shark-infested waters and was eaten by a shark. I guess I should find another ocean.

        What really gets me is the expectation that you can do something stupid and it’s someone else’s fault that there are consequences.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, the ad doesn’t actually say that the hypothetical accident is her fault. I can see an argument for not raising rates after a single accident if the driver wasn’t at fault. As I recall, the last accident either Elizabeth or I had was she was rear-ended — fortunately without much damage. (I’ve been rear-ended twice, though both were decades ago. In one case neither car was damaged (bumper-to-bumper at low speed). In the other, the other car’s front grill hit my rear bumper, which was no problem for me but very bad for him.)

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Well, the ad doesn’t actually say that the hypothetical accident is her fault.

            Her body language states that it is her fault. And this commercial could have easily been written so that she says, “Another driver ran a red light and smashed my car…”

            But it didn’t. It seems so obvious that this is written to reach the idiotic Snowflake generation who think insurance companies are evil and that the dumb stuff they do is always someone else’s fault.

            The funny part is, I’ll be you that this “forgiving” company has some pretty high rates for the libtards looking for an insurance company that doesn’t mind that they drive like they were in a destruction derby. No insurance company can stay in business if they don’t charge more for higher risks.

            So, yeah, you pampered dumb *#@%s. Come to Liberty Mutual where you’ll never ever have to pay more for being a careless driver. And we’re sure you’re careless enough that you won’t shop around and will simply accept our “forgiving” high rates as a deal. Happy crashing.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Everything comes at a price. Those ads for full replacement price policies — nice, but you can bet they cost more because of it. And if you can’t charge more for the significant expense (as is the case, I think, with pre-existing conditions now), then everyone pays more.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            So, yeah, you pampered dumb *#@%s. Come to Liberty Mutual where you’ll never ever have to pay more for being a careless driver. And we’re sure you’re careless enough that you won’t shop around and will simply accept our “forgiving” high rates as a deal. Happy crashing.

            Funny you should get on this subject.

            Yesterday I ran into (almost literally) two examples of the sorry-ass driving of a couple of drivers, the type of which you have described.

            1) In the afternoon, I was at a stop light and the light turned green. I started forward and young female darted out from the left-hand turn lane across from me and almost ran into my car. The way the lights are set up at that intersection my having a green light means, the opposite left-hand turn light was either flashing yellow or red. Of course the idiot sped away.

            2) I witnessed and even worse example earlier in the day. Some young woman was apparently not paying attention to what was going on, as she decided to turn left from a side-street on to a main road while her light was red. I was turning on to the same road from the opposite side a bit farther down, but had waited for a car to drive by. (I had no light) That car, which looked like an old Saturn compact, plowed into the young lady’s new SUV going something like 40-50 miles per hour. Luckily, the main impact was just behind the lady and she didn’t appear to be hurt, but she sure was shocked.

            It seems more and more people are not paying attention to what they are doing while driving. Of course the area in which I live is growing rapidly so more drivers generally means more accidents. But Geeez.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              The worst accident I ever encountered came a few decades ago. I was visiting a friend at IU, and was stuck for an hour or more on a two-lane road because of an accident. I walked forward and heard something about “two fatals” — and later saw one car with the front cabin completely crunched in, so that sounds likely. But I have no idea what caused the accident. But I suspect it was a head-on collision at a relatively high speed.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I guess the worst accidents I came upon were both motorcycle fatalities.

                The first was almost forty years ago on the winding road in the Sihl Valley when driving from Zurich to Zug in Switzerland.

                The second was probably five years later in Johor Malaysia.

                I must say I was a bit surprised by the first death, but not at all by the second. The reason for the different reaction has to do with the driving standards in Switzerland and Malaysia, or better said, the high driving standards in Switzerland and the insane driving standards in Malaysia in those days.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              That sounds like a nasty accident, Mr. Kung. Shirley she will need some insurance.

              Think of all the ink we all have spilled here on the Sacrament of Grievance on various topics that come and go and blow away again with the wind as if they had never happened. But it would be very materially useful if we imparted to yutes the information and skills necessary to be a defensive driver.

              Alas, defensive driving is an attitude not conducive to narcissistic Progressivism whereby the world is to conform to your every wish and need. This mindset puts people on autopilot. I have the right to drive in this lane therefore I cannot be bothered with the details.

              Obvious turning left at a stoplight is a clear breaking of traffic rules. And yet the driver who had the right-of-way may or may not have avoided that collision by adopting the attitude that I do that every other person on the road is an idiot, and I can’t be too sure about myself either.

              My father was a harsh taskmaster. His was the Hermann Göring School of Student Driving when I was learning to drive. It wasn’t learning to drive as much as it was a boot camp for defensive driving. And I wonder how many fatherless children out there learn their driving skills from Mr. Rogers, not Hermann Göring (metaphorically speaking…I quite like Mr. Rogers and thing Hermann Göring is a despicable man, although he apparently should be judged, like Bruce Jenner, as courageous for his cross-dressing endeavors. Many of the Nazis were homosexuals which really ought to change the hated attitude that Leftists have to this misunderstood regime.)

              But I digress. Suffice it to say, I have been saved a time or two by the defensive driving of others. But more often I have avoided collisions but assuming The Idiot Rule. The Idiot Rule almost never fails me. And it certainly has saved me a time or two.

              So, if anyone wants to really change the world instead of just engaging in the daily Sacrament of Grievance, pen an article on Defensive Driving Skills for Yutes. And I suspect not only yutes could find it useful. I know many many conservatives who think it’s quite alright to send text messages on their cell phones while driving. To some extent, they should be commended that they can do it at all and not run their car off the side of the road. I have no interesest in even trying.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                My mother got me a driving education course as a high-school graduation present.

                There were many homosexuals among the Nazis (especially the SA), though I don’t think Göring was one. He probably wasn’t even a cross-dresser, though he did have some effeminacies (to the disgust of Count Ciano0. But this is partly cultural; for example, when Romania entered the Great War, they banned the use of makeup by junior officers. RHIP.

    • Anniel says:

      The ads I really yell at are the Progressive auto insurance ads with “Flo” spouting her so-called “poetry.” And she gets paid for such rotgut.

      Maybe it’s a toss-up as to which company is most annoying.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      Brad, noxious as that ad is there are many that will make your head explode even more. I refer to the so-called PSAs from the ad council. We see or hear them daily supporting some do-good cause. Here is the link, just don’t view too many of the ads or I can not be held responsible for the resulting eye-popping.

      One that seems popular right now has Brad Pitt, not an intellectual giant even for Hollywood, decrying the millions of “women” searching for clean water. Apparently, men don’t drink water. But, also promoting the idea that there is a world water crisis, which is the whole point. Only government, partnered with the company Pitt is touting can bring clean water to these poor waifs.

      When you view their site all you find are references to progressive causes. One radio network, cumulus, is very aggressive with ad council propaganda. While broadcasting “conservative talk radio” they fill the air with progressive ads. The hypocrisy should be evident even to them.

      I recently called a local station, KFAY in Fayetteville, to inquire why so many PSAs and so little local business. The response was enlightening, they don’t have anyone selling ad time in our market and the PSAs are part of a national buy from, you know who, the ad council.

      So, the options are two. Either don’t listen to talk radio. Not likely, I have been listening to Rush since 1983 in Sacramento, or turn off the radio and stream what I want on the net. When I am in my car the propaganda comes on and the radio goes off, generally with a shut the F up, sometimes I don’t turn it back on.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I recall back in the 1990s there was such an ad, talking about diversity in employment. It featured a bigoted manager who keeps rejecting all the candidates for a promotion because of his various prejudices (against blacks, women, the handicapped, homosexuals). It appeared regularly on Rush. Then Paul Shanklin did a delightful parody of it (“True Diversity”, which can be found on the Executive Privileges CD). The ad disappeared after that, at least on Rush.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Oh, those Ad Council ads are infuriating because inherent to them is a catch-22 principle. If you are so stupid that you need short bits of government propaganda to set you straight then you are likely too stupid already to learn even these simple-minded lessons.

        Here. Let me do what should be done. Here is the car insurance commercial I want to see.

        • pst4usa says:

          Here is a testimonial Brad
          I went to and saved 75% on my car insurance. I just love my new policy. Very funny Brad, I am still laughing.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I’m glad someone with a good sense of humor appreciated that. If we do more, we’ll start a parody section or something. Maybe even increase our production values.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Note that the son does grasp that Koriba would like to see the jackals before leaving. Doesn’t that sounds like one of the few overlaps between a progressive and a back-to-nature traditionalist?

    Timothy, it’s difficult to know where this story is going, although you have laid down some signposts in your comments about it. I just finished the second story in the series, For I Have Touched the Sky (free online).

    The one obvious flaw in these stories thus far is the persona of the witch doctor. He is determined to keep to tradition but (aside from what may be in the prequel) shows no reason for him to show this level of conviction. We know he’s an educated man who laments the passing of tradition, but to the point of willingly strangling babies? We’re missing a lot of backstory on this guy.

    That said, this second story tugs at the heartstrings. A young girl is pressing against the bounds of her elders. She’s smart as a whip, headstrong, and creative. She wants to live as her tribe lives and says she will willingly take on the normal burdens of a woman. But at the same time, she wants to learn to read. She wants to expand her horizons.

    The mundumugu is against any stretching of the bounds beyond the tradition he has set into stone. Whether this represents the hardened practices of his culture, we do not know. We do not know if his culture changed somewhat over time. We don’t know if his dictates are arbitrary. We do not know, for starters, if his culturocracy is authentic.

    Be that as it may, his message to the young girl can be summbed up by his words to her:

    You must always remember who you are, and knowing too many things can make you forget.

    Given that we now have an ex Olympic Decathlon champion who has lopped his dick off, wears dresses, and everyone agrees this as “courageous,” perhaps we can glimpse that a world without limits is just as problematic as one with excessive limits.

    But it makes you wonder where do you draw the line? If wanting is the only requirement to make something legitimate, where does that get us? But in the microcosm of this story, the limits are wrong and arbitrary. The girl (an American at heart) wants to explore new ideas and test her limits. Most conservatives would applaud this so long as her limits do not require limiting others through affirmative action, quotas, etc. We could still cheer for the little girls breaking the bounds of a manocracy if we did no already know how this so often plays out in practice.

    But in the confines of this story, little Kamari is what we would think of as a normal and healthy child. If she is abnormal at all it is in her outstanding abilities. (Spoiler alert). She tastes a bit of the magic of knowledge and imagination and then it is taken from her. She soon after commits suicide.

    We conservatives ought rightly to be torn on this issue. On the one hand, without guideposts along the way, we have no safe harbor from which to venture forth. On the other hand, if you mine the harbor so that no one can ever escape, that is not good either. As conservatives, we understand the importance of tradition. On the other hand, we are enemies of collectivism (particularly of the numb, hive-like mind) and cheer individualism. We champion the raw metal structure of the girders and beams which form the basis of any tall building but from which a variety of buildings can be made.

    America has thrown away the idea of tradition and girders and instead has gone for no-limits and the mindset of utopia. A story such as this touches on some of the basic issues that any good civilization must deal with: How do you form a cohesive whole and yet allow ample freedom?

    In the African utopia of this story, people are protected from most change. They have little freedom but tradition is their meaning and way of life. And if they know no better, they can be satisfied with what they have. In theory.

    In reality, we’ve seen all across the world that cultures will easily dump their back-breaking work to enjoy the fruits of modern living. I really don’t know the point of view of this writer yet. But certainly there is a “noble savage” conceit in Progressive culture that believes that the modern world only ever can corrupt “people of color” who quite naturally would otherwise live at peace with their world and with each other.

    For Westerners weary of the never-ending guilt laid upon us, it’s a nice escape to believe this. I was told today by someone that Native Americans didn’t know sin until Europeans came to the continent. And he said this with a straight face.

    I guess we all long for returning to the Garden of Eden, even if it means fabricating history. But is stasis and being a slave to someone else’s tradition really what our Maker prefers for us? Who knows? But given the immense creativity inherent in the universe itself, this seems unlikely. Getting the balance right, however, continues to give us problems.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A number of fans seemed to confuse author and narrator. Resnick noted after only a few stories that Koriba’s utopia was doomed, and for much the same reason you point out. Koriba is a very complex character, sympathetic in many ways, but also unbending at key moments. This will come up — and the fraying of his utopia begin — in “The Manamouki” (though we see a hint of trouble to come in “Bwana”). And Kamari is a strong enough character that she’s the only other name of a character I can remember (I no longer have access to the original).

      Incidentally, Resnick has pointed out that “manamouki” in Swahili refers not specifically to a wife, but rather to any female property — a wife, a cow, a she-goat, whatever.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Well, I haven’t decided whether or not to shell out $11.99 for the full Kindle version but I’m tempted. Certainly I think people would appreciate the first two chapters that are available online.

        This is such a huge subject. It’s difficult to talk about it without oversimplification. Let’s just say that tradition, identity, nationhood, tribes, obedience-to-authority, rebellion, and individualism is a huge topic.

        Our cultural conditioning of the moment would have most people jeering this oppressive, patriarchal witch doctor, as well we should. What is unlikely to happen is to associate this witch doctor with the cultural conditioners of, say, Berkeley or your corporate HR department. One of the oddest things is to have a generation spoon-fed on the bromides of “think different,” “dissent is the highest form and patriotism,” and “just do it” who are perhaps the most sheep-like generation this nation has ever had.

        If this book was $7.99, I’d buy it. I think it’s over-priced at $11.99. Still, those two chapters were quality.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It would be interesting to see how a multiculturalist would respond to the stories. After all, Koriba’s crimes (such as strangling breech babies as demons) are in accordance with his culture, but at some level he knows better. Note that if his computer could only communicate with the maintenance people, Kamari might not have been tempted by it, and would have gone on to be a typical (if brilliant) Kikuyu girl.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    National Review had an article on this which is where I first heard about it, despite Nordstrom being a Northwest company.

    What kind of a silly person would you have to be to pay $425.00 for pants made to look dirty?

    I get pants looking like that for free when I’m out gardening.

    What this represents is the archetype of Men without Chests. Any man silly enough to pay this kind of money so that he can look (at least on the exterior) like a real man is not a real man. He is a fake man. More than that, he is a supercilious man, with emphasis on the “silly.”

    Just from a practical standpoint, even if you wanted to make a fashion statement, it would cost you nothing to take a $30.00 pair of jeans and kneel in the dirt.

    And how an idiot like this could get dirt on his crotch is beyond me. Is he humping his garden? I love my garden, but not that much.

    Items like this should be ridiculed. Only a liberal could buy something so stupid. And shouldn’t these high-minded people just spend $30.00 on a pair of regular jeans and send the extra $395.00 to starving people in Africa if they are the benevolent souls that they believe themselves to be?

    On the bright side, my look is becoming fashionable.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      There have always been those who wanted to pretend to be what they aren’t, be it workers or heroes. I seem to recall similar things (jeans worn down in the knees or some such) from the ’60s, which I suppose wouldn’t be a surprise. But Bill Mauldin, discussing those he called “garritroopers” in Up Front, noted that sometimes their fashion was clothes that looked like they’d been in combat (even they never were themselves).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I wonder who we were trying to be back in the 70’s when we were wearing bell-bottom pants?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I never much cared for flares and bell-bottoms, if only because they were tighter around the waist. But I couldn’t find executive cut pants near Purdue. And they say women are slaves to fashion — this was only a couple of years after the effort to change the fashion away from miniskirts failed.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            One of the interest results of being a slave to fashion isn’t necessarily that $425.00 pair of fake dirty jeans being offered by a libtard corporation (Nordstrom). It’s the emphasis on fashion itself in all its varieties, especially political fashion.

            Few can afford to drop $425.00 on a pair of jeans that hopefully Mike Rowe would laugh at. And he apparently did when he wrote:

            “‘Rugged Americana’ is now synonymous with a ‘caked-on, muddy coating.’ Not real mud. Fake mud. Something to foster the illusion of work. The illusion of effort.”

            But holding to political fashion costs very little. This is what is behind the uncritical holding of such ideas as “climate change” and a variety of other boutique ideas. You can hold these fashionable ideas and they immediately cost you nothing and gain you much acclaim amongst those for whom ideas are to be purchased in matching sets with little regard for reality and facts.

            And we have Trump, so this is the pot calling the kettle black. Those such as myself who see Trump undermining conservatism I think are likely correct. Trump is our fashion of the day, all smoke-and-mirrors and very little substance. (Williamson agrees with me.)

            I was a bit aghast the other day when a friend of mine, who has sort of gone off the deep end in terms of “the noble savage,” announced that our sins are so bad that he didn’t think he could celebrate the Fourth of July again. My friend is of the generation for whom the purpose of ideas is their therapeutic value, not their substance.

            So when I see fake jeans for sale for $425.00, that is a marker for where we are. And that place is frivolous and stupid.

  10. Timothy Lane says:

    This might be a good place to mention a recent scientific hoax. There have been many efforts to parody modern idiocies through scientific hoaxes, which may have started with the first science fair project to get people to sign up to ban the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide (i.e., water). The latest is a paper (which got published and praised in a social science journal) claiming that the penis is a social construct and blaming it for global warming. The authors, in discussing the hoax in Skeptic, noted that they expected a paper blaming maleness for a major problem would be accepted regardless of how little sense it made, and they were right. The link is:

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I recall the silly science fair project. If memory serves, it was some kid in New Mexico who went around getting signatures.

      That project proved not only that a large portion of the population is illiterate as regards science and language; it also proved that lots of people will sign anything as long as that document is couched in terms to make the signatory feel superior about him/herself by signing it.

      Of course, the lemming effect must also be taken into consideration.

      However, the “study” about the penis being responsible for global warming is idiocy and corruption of a different order of magnitude. Worse than Lysenkoism.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I can see what you mean; Lysenko’s theories weren’t obvious nonsense. But remember, the problem isn’t the study itself, but the fact that a bunch of social scientists founds it very credible — which was the point of the hoax.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *