Saving Us from Our Degenerate Selves

king tyrantby Glenn Fairman   3/15/14
In the beginning there was a dream called America. And in that dream, our Founders, in the Enlightenment spirit that sought to breathe life into the sage wisdom of the ancients, intended to found a mixed regime. Envisioned as a republic, it consisted of a popularly elected House of Representatives (the “Low”) and a quasi-aristocratic body (rule of the best- or the “High”) taking the form of a Senate. Of the latter, those artful framers contemplated an indirectly elected and longer empowered group of men who would act as an aristocratic depository of deliberative wisdom and political memory – a political brake which would counter the tendency towards the unprofitable accumulation of power in representative governance.

Having studied the annals of man, the Fathers then duly established this high legislative chamber in the hope that it would be well insulated from the capricious appetites and passions of the fiery demos. And so, in the waning years of the 18th century, a civic architecture revived from the ancients would again be called upon to harness a finely tuned balance of both passion and virtue. Indeed, such political prudence would be deemed an unassailable necessity if this novel type of regime was to remain true to the lofty first principles of its founding visionaries.[pullquote]By favoring the popular and passionate democratic hunger for an equality of prestige and material result arbitrated through the calculating hands of ambitious men, we are witnesses to this slide towards immoderation in economics, in much the same way we perceive the moral erosion that is even now undermining the way we would conduct our lives.[/pullquote]

Both Aristotle and Plato informed political philosophy of the turbulence of direct democracy and its tendency towards anarchy and tyranny as regimes inevitably degenerated. Consequently, this melding of both “high and low” would lead to a structure of moderation and equilibrium, while firmly establishing a tendency towards incremental change and stability. In this work of civic genius, the rule of law and limited governmental prerogatives were to be bound by enumerated Constitutional provisions that were set in stone to guard the precious liberties of a sovereign people.

Since those days, as the tension between the aristoi and the demos has diminished by virtue of America’s relentless tendency towards egalitarianism, one cannot but recognize the resulting fatal imbalance. By favoring the popular and passionate democratic hunger for an equality of prestige and material result arbitrated through the calculating hands of ambitious men, we are witnesses to this slide towards immoderation in economics, in much the same way we perceive the moral erosion that is even now undermining the way we would conduct our lives. Our current regime’s cynical pandering to short term thinking over the mature considerations of what constitutes: civic and legislative prudence, a sustainable economics, the nexus between governmental and individual virtue, and the Good Life itself – as was once traditionally understood, has caused America to suffer both materially and spiritually. Look all around you. The stench of Barack Obama’s disastrous political philosophy is in the very oxygen we breathe — as we grow smaller, weaker, less certain, and more anxious of what his recipe for transformation truly has in store for us.

In the service of confounding the immoderation that afflicts fallen men once they have tasted the excesses of power, constitutional safety valves where set as bulwarks in the interest of liberty. As watchman over our freedoms, the constitution posited: a separation of powers, checks and balances, 2 and 6 year terms of service for legislators, federalism, and a fundamental bill of rights. All these were carefully contemplated and integrated into a document that was intended to delineate the reciprocal relation between rulers and ruled in a republic. Nevertheless, within a regime of constitutionally grounded popular sovereignty, where the citizen is the “wild card determiner” of its manifest character, it is the intellectual and moral quality of America itself that ultimately and fearfully determines the strength and health of the republic writ large.

In our audacity to improve upon the Founder’s intent, democracy: that egalitarian siren would soon cast her bewitching spell upon the people; and so began America’s post hoc constitutional fiddling. The ratification of the 17th Amendment, the imposition of state term limits for legislators, and the progressive panacea of state ballot initiatives are all merely foolish patchwork attempts at injecting democratic passions into government. Misunderstanding the fully corrosive implications of untamed democracy, we unwisely loosen our system’s fundamental Constitutional tensions as a short-sighted means of saving us from our own degenerate selves. Just as a republic of angels would require little or no laws, so then a crippled republic riddled with: covetous desire, material lust, moral perversion, and clamor for equality at any cost is by definition devoid of restraint and the genius of self-rule. A debauched democracy, fallen in its moral/political vision, will increasingly require a mountain of laws to dampen its tendency towards unenlightened self-interest and anarchy–and even those will prove ultimately insufficient to rescue it from collective suicide.[pullquote]A debauched democracy, fallen in its moral/political vision, will increasingly require a mountain of laws to dampen its tendency towards unenlightened self-interest and anarchy–and even those will prove ultimately insufficient to rescue it from collective suicide.[/pullquote]

If one considers the current composition and character of the United States Senate, it is clear that this once august body has free fallen from the Founder’s design. Although it approximates its original form nominally, it appears now that little distinction exists when compared with the House of Representative’s deliberative ethos. Moreover, the Senate, in its current corrupted manifestation, has gone farther and assumed the unsavory role as rubber stamp for the managerial tyranny of the Obama regime. Many of those in its hierarchy luxuriate at the public trough, all while averting a calculating eye to the tearing down of our constitutional firewall. By giving their enthusiastic assent to Imperial prerogatives never dreamed of by the Fathers, there are many within the Senate who are now more destructive to hearth and home than 100 anarchists equipped with bomb vests. In truth, it takes no boldness of intellect to draw an analogy to the Fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Principate: where the rights and respective duties of the citizenry came to exist in name only and the Senate declined into a haunt of privilege – having perfected the obsequious art of heeling to its Master’s voice.

No republic can withstand the onslaught of moral and civil decay in its discreet parts– no matter how cleverly checks, balances, laws, limits or powers are instituted within a once enlightened architecture. By allowing Barack Obama the legislative and executive latitude wholly inconsistent with a republic’s respect for liberty, and having stood aghast and wide-eyed as this demagogue chips away at our formidable battery of rights by shamelessly defecating on Madison’s document, we reveal, to our shame, that we have forgotten those admonitions against unmixed power that were set into motion by men who had distilled history’s essence and internalized the necessary lessons concerning the distinct limitations of the human heart.

Our Founder’s understanding of political liberty requires an abundant capacity for self-rule: and this translates both to the soul and in the public square. Absent this, it is impossible for a regime to retain its Founding virtues. Without them, it descends into utopian longing, oligarchy, or tyranny until it relearns, in a crucible of abject pain, the fundamental lessons that were once purchased dearly by others through the currency of blood, treasure, and self-sacrifice.
__________________________________________________
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (11636 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Saving Us from Our Degenerate Selves

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Another great opinion piece, Glenn. I can’t wait ’till this one gets translated into Cajun or some other backwoods dialect as your other one was. 😀

    The Founders were generally of the agreement that only a moral (that is, traditionally religious) people could hold onto liberty. That’s a great sentiment, and likely a true one. But life tends to be lived in the nitty-gritty world, not the world of soaring and profound beliefs.

    This is especially true in our increasingly secular and materially-fecund world (the latter perhaps necessarily leading to the former) which does not lend itself to soaring and profound beliefs, man’s basic needs having been easily acquired by most.

    We need only witness Europe to see this phenomenon. Not only do they not have their traditional Christian identity, most countries now are losing any sort of healthy national identity. And if they identify as anything at all, it is with the weak “multiculti” identity as described by Mark Steyn in “America Alone.” To these “multiculti” types (and they are now legion), The Good Life is one constructed and maintained by various state social services. The depth of one’s life, for all intents and purposes, is measured by the bounds of the screen of one’s iPhone. And all this “multiculti” secular/materialism is turning the people into a sort of moribund bred cow.

    And although I do agree with Dennis Prager that Leftism is the most dynamic religion in the world today, it is a self-limiting religion. Those on the Left simply aren’t breeding — for various reasons, not least of which is that children get in the way of enjoying their material world.

    Theodore Dalrymple has some outstanding insights on this overall situation in his book, “Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentiment,” including this one:

    The triumph of the romantic view of education was doubly disastrous because it coincided with the triumph of the romantic view of human relations. This view goes something like this: the object of human life being happiness, and the fact that many marriages are unhappy being patent and obvious, it is time to found human relationships not upon such extraneous and unromantic bases as social obligation, financial interest, and duty, but upon nothing other than love, affection and inclination. All attempts at stability founded upon anything but love, affection and inclination are inherently oppressive and therefore ought to be discounted. Once relations — especially those between the sexes — were founded upon love alone, the full beauty of the human personality, hitherto obscured by clouds of duty, convention, social shame and the like, would emerge, as a shimmering dragonfly in the summer.

    And about as long-lasting too. The family, which with all its undoubted miseries (as well, of course, as joys) has long been the object of hate of ambitious intellectuals, for the family stands between the state, to be directed by intellectuals, and total power.

    That is why it is right and proper to call ours the Age of Narcissism. Happiness is an expectation, not something to be pursued alongside the various duties and burdens of life. Happiness is now considered as a right-of-being, not the added spice infused, from time to time, into a life lived with purpose and meaning, and thus happiness is a part (but not the whole) of a life infused with hardships and disappointments as well (for you will find it hard to find any real meaning outside that of a bred cow without such things).

    It’s very tempting to cast this question of needing to get back to the “Old Time Religion.” (And, in fact, we do need to do just this.) The problem is that inside of much of Christianity today are these same expectations of earthly comforts — so deeply woven in that much of Christian memory has been erased, just as has happened to the culture at large regarding history and tradition.

    Whatever “social justice” might have legitimately meant in the old-style Catholic lexicon, it now means “spreading the wealth” in a mode and manner completely consistent with the Marxism/socialism of Obama. There is, of course, an important place in Christianity (or in any national spirit) for charity. But charity born of duty to one’s fellow man is much different from a charity based on little more than political egalitarianism or white-middle-class-guilt with the view that the greatest sin isn’t sin but to be poor (or to have more than another).

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      The degeneration of church morality is precisely as you have stated. Today’s church officials cannot see that private charity is a Christian virtue; public “charity,” meaning legalized theft and redistribution, is a great evil. And they are now paying the price for their moral failure as Leviathan is preparing to swallow them whole.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Ditto, Nik.

        It’s not quite to the point where “Christian” has become a word so re-defined by the Left that, like the legitimate word, “gay,” it is almost useless to try to hold onto the old definition. But it’s getting close.

        And that’s not an anti-Christian statement. It’s a pro-Christian statement. There is something there worth holding onto. But we have to realize just how deep socialism has inserted its tentacles and not be fooled by mere outer forms.

        Jesus was even rolling his eyes back then at the human propensity to trivialize things, to be profane, and to seek “free stuff.” I believe he was referring to this when he said:

        “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”

        Christians do the same thing, glossing completely over the primacy of the aspects of personal moral soul-searching and substituting mere collectivist economics, turning them into sort of a profane version of the Incarnation wherein an economic model is a stand-in for transcending white guilt, for all practical purposes.

        So often today, to be a Christian means to put poverty on a pinnacle and see it as the true point of Christianity. And I don’t think of these people as Christians but as Marxists in drag.

        St. Francis had it right. He put the emphasis back on the spiritual by demoting (quite severely, at least for himself) material concerns. There is no Christ in “social justice.” There is only Marx and misguided people.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      “Theodore Dalrymple has some outstanding insights on this overall situation in his book, “Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentiment,”

      I believe Dalrymple to be the most brilliant and honest social critic of our times. He is a man who has dealt with the actual results of the crumbling society due to the successful infiltration of the Left, and their Libertarian friends, into our cultural institutions.

      The following is a quote from his book, “Our Culture, What’s Left of it: The Mandarins and the Masses”

      “There has been a long march not only through the institutions but through the minds of the young. When young people want to praise themselves, they describe themselves as ‘nonjudgmental.’ For them, the highest form of morality is amorality.

      There has been an unholy alliance between those on the Left, who believe that man is endowed with rights but not duties, and Libertarians on the Right, who believe that consumer choice is the answer to all social questions, an idea eagerly adopted by the Left in precisely those areas where it does not apply. Thus people have the right to bring forth children any way the like, and the children, of course, have the right not to be deprived of anything, at least anything material. How men and women associate and have children is merely a matter of consumer choice of no more moral consequence than the choice between dark and milk chocolate, and the state must not discriminate among different forms of association and child rearing, even if such non-discrimination has the same effect as British and French neutrality during the Spanish Civil War.

      The consequences to the children and to society do not enter into the matter: for in any case it is the function of the state to ameliorate by redistributive taxation the material effects of individual irresponsibility, and to ameliorate the emotional, educational, and spiritual effects by an army of social workers, psychologists, educators, counsellors, and the like, who have themselves come to form a powerful vested interest of dependence on the government.

      So while my patients know in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong, they are encouraged nevertheless to do it by the strong belief that they have the right to do it, because everything is merely a matter of choice.”

      I yelled “Yes, yes, yes” as I read this. I had intended to pen a brief piece on this subject, but this quote pretty much puts the lie to Libertarian claims that their amoral societal choices can lead to conservative market results. That this is blatantly obvious in today’s context shows that many Libertarians are in truth Leftists. Those who are not must be oblivious to real world observations and lack important critical thinking skills. Facts apparently mean very little to them. Perhaps that ganja really has affected their mental faculties.

      Brad, I think you should add a special page or section with stock replies to mushy minded Libertarians. This quote and recommended reading would be a good place to start.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Great quote. Thanks for sharing.

        You could, of course, do a blog post with perhaps a link to the under-used forums. It all depends upon how ongoing you want to be. I could certainly start a “Debunking Blog” dedicated to the subject at hand and more. Let me know your thoughts on the subject in regards to any kind of new permanent section.

  2. LibertyMark says:

    “That is why it is right and proper to call ours the Age of Narcissism.”

    On Breitbart News Saturday today, the host or one of the guests enumerated the list proving your statement. The one I remember is, the highest accomplishment for Millenialls is a Selfie With a Celebrity.

    It made me laugh, then made me cry.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    One interesting point I read a few years ago is that the Founder sought to combine the elements of monarchy (the President), oligarchy (the Senate), and democracy (the House). This makes the idea that each was to be able to check the other branches even more apt. Today, we have the rule of the lowest common denominator (and it’s very common indeed).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      That’s an interesting way of looking at it: monarchy/oligarchy/democracy. Surely there’s a lot of truth in that. (And don’t call me Shirley.) It’s the opposite of the kind of “unity” the left longs for.

      If you had a Constitutional Convention today, I would expect most people on the Left (and the various useful idiot “moderates”) would go for some grand “National Assembly” with no Senate at all. And they would act as a rubber stamp for a very powerful Chief Executive. (We’re morphing to that now anyway.)

      But the eyes of the Left would always be situated on trying to find a way to create a permanent one-party state with them at the helm. They don’t believe in representative government. Much like any dictator, they would be fine with one man, one vote, one time.

      Thus any kind of “democracy” (where the art of demagoguery, high passion, and inflamed prejudices can incite majorities, if not outright purchase them) is their method. And soon such outer forms do indeed become a rubber stamp for the party oligarchy (which also controls the bureaucracy) which has the real power. Again, we’re morphing to just that now.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Actually, liberals don’t really like democracy either, despite their frequent ability to win using their skills at demagoguery. Their goal is simply to win at all costs, and they don’t always win with democracy. This is why, at heart, they prefer dictatorship to any form of democracy. Their ideal is enlightened despotism (defining enlightened as “agrees with us”, of course), which in their case ultimately devolves into the desire for a god-king.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Actually, liberals don’t really like democracy either…

          Absolutely. They believe that whatever unfiltered impulse comes out of them is sacrosanct. Majority rule is as far as their vision extends, or according to them, needs to. All forms of what we call the checks-and-balance of our republican form of government are simply impediments to The Will.

          This sick and twisted (or at least naïve and uniformed) ideology says that the Constitution (and other impediments to the rule of the mob) were put there simply to protect the power of moneyed interests. (And you wonder why there is a single Jew on earth who votes for these people. Oy vey.)

          This all started (somewhat) with Rousseau. As Theodore Dalrymple describes well in his books, the Left’s ideology merged Freud with Rousseau (and a few other crackpots). The gist of it is (and see if this doesn’t square with libertarian ideas) that humans are basically good and become bad only because of outside deformative influences (surely the root of the libertarian “non-coercion” dogma as well). In fact, they take this ideology so far that they believe the natural impulses of children will always be good, therefore any “repression” of those impulses (what you or I would call discipline or training) is bad.

          And it doesn’t really matter what side of the political fence you are on. These ideas are so embedded in the culture now, they infect nearly everyone. The entire idea that one’s sexuality should be subject to restraint, for example, is written off (even by quite intelligent people) as just a left-over from the “oppressive” and backward world of religion.

          And, as Dalrymple points out, these are convenient ideas for those who basically want to be moral lechers. And that describes the Left.

          • Glenn Fairman says:

            If one goes back as far as Rousseau, as Bloom says, one sees him as The Turning Point ( one of his best essays) even to the exclusion of Machiavelli’s “new modes and orders.” In addition to the Social Contract and The Origins of Inequality, his Emile is very descriptive of the type of human he wishes to produce in society. I recommend the latter to anyone who wants to go to the grand source. Rousseau’s personal life, however, left much to be desired, and he and Burke are a study in contrasts.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I was cleaning up my hard drive and I ran into a pdf document titled “What is Democratic Socialism?” It’s extremely creepy that people think like the following. But many do. You will find utopia mixed in with authoritarianism. I mean, doesn’t anyone ever consider the kind of top-down dictator-like authority it takes to try to implement these schemes? Apparently not, for Obama and the Dastardly Democrats passed Obamacare and these types keep getting voted into office.

              Won’t socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?

              We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

              And this…

              If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word?

              First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas [and Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Castro, Chavev – ed.], and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

              • Rosalys says:

                I love the part about the “unappealing” jobs, and there’s the rub! Someone’s got to clean the latrines; and if any one thinks that a George Soros, a John Kerry or an Obama is going to take his turn or even show appreciation to the poor slob who takes his turn for him then I have a bridge for sale!

            • Timothy Lane says:

              My high-school European history text discussed Emile and pointed out that in the end the young man proves to be dependent on his mentor even after theoretically having learned. In other words, he evidently didn’t really learn to think for himself. If so, this explains why the Left would like Rousseau.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Timothy, I think the bridge to the post-Christian world has been the enormous success of political, economic, and social freedom. Yes, the Left (the Marxists, socialists, Communists, “Progressives,” and other ne’er-do-wells) have certainly pushed us in that direction so that we’ve arrived here sooner than we would have.

                But can any man or woman abide by the idea that we are in the world, but not of the world, when science, technology, and capitalism itself has brought an explosion of creature comforts?

                Can any man or woman abide by the idea that it is best to restrain ourselves today because there is more to existence than scratching the latest itch?

                The dogma of “democratic” socialism (secularism, in general) is the dogma that man has nothing more to live for than this day. And because this day can be made relatively comfortable thanks to our incredibly materially productive system, the only point to living is comfort and to scratch every itch. The very point of the state then is to provide social services for our comfort and to act (though few are honest enough to admit it except those conservatives who understand how all this works) to socialize (spread to others) the various costs of scratching every itch and seeking every comfort.

                And Theodore Dalrymple’s angle on this (though hardly a unique angle) is that these various dogmas— which are layered in superficial conceits such as “liberty,” “equality,” and “fairness” (note the convergence with libertarianism) — mask what is simply mankind’s urge to try to do what he could not otherwise get away with, whether you are talking about free sex or free stuff. Man’s darkest, most selfish, and most destructive impulses are given the green light under socialism. All is permitted.

                Of course, as history has shown, any flavor of socialism will eventually collapse. In short, despite the hifalutin’ ideology and lofty rhetoric, you can’t demonize productivity and reward moocherism without collapsing the house around you. It doesn’t matter if you can get a few useful idiots distracted with such things as gay marriage. The overall scheme just cannot work.

        • Rosalys says:

          Once tyranny has become complete the tyrant loves a “democratic” show to stroke his ego. Remember Saddam Hussein’s last “election” where he (gasp!) garnered 99% of the vote? What courage it must have taken to be a 1%-er! Poor guy didn’t live long enough to be seen to be outdone by Kim Jong Un’s recent 100%!

          Democracy can be very useful to the tyrant. I heard this on Glenn Beck, that democracy is a train you ride until you get to your stop.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Yes, a pretense of democracy can be useful as long as people believe the pretense. Robert Heinlein had his character Bernardo de la Paz observed that “A managed democracy is great for the managers” in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Venezuela has followed this path, and Big Brother Barry has shown himself to be a Hugo Chavez wannabe.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    This may be as good a place as any to mention a TownHall post by Neal Boortz on the subject of “racist” elephants. It seems that certain elephants have learned to engage in ethnic profiling of the Masai and Kamba tribes by clothing (such as the red robes of the Masai) and dialect much as urban people learn to engage in profiling based on clothing (such as the hoodies of young urban gangsters) and dialect (gang argot).

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I love the part about the “unappealing” jobs, and there’s the rub! Someone’s got to clean the latrines…

    Rosalys, I think most of us here have seen Mike Rowe’s show. There are indeed “dirty jobs.” People do them because it pays and it’s a livelihood. And not to be under-rated is that not everyone — men, in particular — want to live inside the eternal Art Fair that Nancy Pelosi and here type envision as the end goal of homo sapiens. Nancy, not everyone is an effete Pajama Boy. Some men like lifting heavy loads and doing real work.

    And these art fair types forget that life is inherently a dirty job to some degree. Man is made to work, not to sit around sipping champagne while doing “arts and crafts” all day. But that is the naive romantic vision of the Left.

    That’s not even to mention how naive their economic view is. It’s been shown time and again that no matter how smart the Obama and Nancy Pelosi types think they are, you can’t plan an economy from the top-down — at least not if you want a creative, dynamic, and vibrant economy, presumably the type of one that does leave enough leisure time for doing watercolor or pasting sea shells into pretty mosaics.

    • Rosalys says:

      I love Mike Rowe and I love “Dirty Jobs”. My husband and I watched it faithfully. If nothing else it showed that “there are jobs that Americans just won’t do” is a lie. My mother is in a nursing home. Let me tell you, working in a nursing home can be a very dirty job, but those people, all of them, are wonderful. I tell them every chance I get just how much I appreciate them. I realize not all nursing homes are as great as this one. I was blessed to get her in as there is understandably a long waiting list.

      There was a good line in an episode of “Little House on the Prairie”. Nellie Olsen told Laura Ingalls that her dad smelled bad. Laura told her that, “Hard working’ folks only smell bad to other folks who have nothing better to do than stick their noses in the air!”

      And thank God that all men are not Pajama Boys otherwise I would never have found someone worth marrying! I despise pasty, metrosexual “men” – and I use the term loosely here! No woman wants a wimp unless she is a domineering type that needs to have somebody to push around.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Well said! And I take Ronald Reagan as my role model. The man looked good in a suit…or tramping through his ranch in boots and jeans.

  6. Glenn Fairman says:

    Having spent nearly 30 years working around landfills, sewage treatment plants, and sewers, one gets used to the odor of hydrogen sulfide, methane, and mercaptan. My wife used to tell me when I came home from work in the early days that I smelled like a fart. I countered with: it may be sh%& to you, but it’s our bread and butter.

    One does what one must to support a working family. Cultures which become anti-banausic, in regards to employment, ignore the nobility of working for one’s keep and the spiritual elevation that comes from a hard day’s work and seeing something come together that you made with your own two hands. This philosophy did not serve the Greeks or the Spaniards well, the former preferring the labor of slaves (machines?) and the latter preferring impoverishment and titles of nobility to the drudgery of earning a living. It was Locke’s theory of property mixed with human labor that re-dignified the accumulation of capital, but it is the Christian notion of rendering one’s labor to the lord as service that jump started the West.

  7. Glenn Fairman says:

    what a twit……..the best weight reduction is for you to disappear.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      For some reason, Glenn, there’s been a rash of these spam posts. I mark them with the software as “spam” and then delete them. But they still come. It’s like Field of Dreams: If you build it, they will spam. Or something like that.

  8. Glenn Fairman says:

    thanks Rebekah——-we value your feedback.

  9. Glenn (the lesser) says:

    I have no idea what your garbled comment was meant to convey, and I thankful for that.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s some kind of automated spam comment. The point (from their point of view) is to get your to visit their web site (often linked to in their name). And the point then is either to sell you something from the web site or just get another “click” or pageview recorded for purposes of drawing revenue from advertising.

      These people are the equivalent of the things that scurry into the clapboards when you turn the kitchen light on. And I don’t know what is more pathetic, that people use such dishonest means in order to advertise or whether this means is viable because so many people are stupid enough to follow these links.

      I delete them as soon as I find them. But Glenn has frozen this one in time by commenting on it. Now if I were to delete the original, Glenn’s comment would make no sense. So we’ll just grab an object lesson from it: America, don’t buy crap from obvious charlatans and other slimeballs. If you get an email that says, “Hey, this is your grandma. Please click on this link to receive your $10,000 inheritance” then don’t do it, dummy. Think before you click.

  10. Glenn Fairman says:

    you can dump my comment. It was gratuitous

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Does “gratuitous” mean “funny as all get out”? Okay, I’ll dump it simply to get rid of the spammer.

      • Glenn Fairman says:

        I inherited my mother’s caustic tongue.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Spam deserves it. I just emptied the posts that had been automatically captured by the spam filter. It had been a couple months and they added up. You see the ones that the filter doesn’t catch. The ones it did catch numbered over 12,500.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            On my e-mail account, I delete the spam every day (though occasionally I find an item that shouldn’t have been called spam).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Glenn, I always wondered why this article is such an attractant for spam. I think it’s clear now that the word “degenerate” is a real Google attractant for such things.

          Someone, somewhere, has some kind of spam algorithm that has a whole host of naughty or suggestive words that it uses like the nose of a bloodhound to sniff out prospective dumb-asses to sell Crap that No One Needs. Their mother must be proud.

  11. Pretty part of content. I simply stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital to claim that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts.
    Anyway I’ll be subscribing for your augment and
    even I success you get admission to constantly rapidly.

    • Glenn Fairman says:

      Mother’s discounted trilobite vagina obsession historical fruit fly Rex Reed’s Hegelian clothes line.

Comments are closed.