How did they manage this? Continue reading
David Hogbert of Investor’s Business Daily was at yesterday’s hearing in Rockville that got Aaron Walker sent to jail for blogging about a public figure. The magistrate who did so was semi-retired and clearly did not grasp how Google works.
“I find that this is worse than harassment. It’s a nasty, dirty thing to do to somebody … you’ve got people all over writing these things. He’s got 54 pages that he says come directly from you, and he’s got volumes of people who are doing it.”
People… all over … writing THINGS!
UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein sees a vindication of what he’s been saying all along: control of language is everything.
That the left would celebrate such an ill-informed and frightening ruling is further proof that “progressivism” — for all its talk of fairness and protection for the little guy — is about nothing more than power and control. And any way they can seize it is fine with them, the ends justifying the means and all.
– Which is why it isn’t at all unhelpful or “fundamentally unserious” to point out how and why progressives adopt a particular view of language and a particularly convenient anti-foundationalist epistemological stance: it is through the institutionalizing of the collectivist assumptions inherent in the left’s philosophical outlook (which is inherently egalitarian, and so inherently anti-liberty and, in the strictest sense therefore anti-American) that they’ve been able to lay the foundation for the normalizing of a postmodernist worldview, one in which Enlightenment principles are overthrown and replaced by a cheap relativism in order to reach an end stage where a mandate to rule is the product of coalition politics, a Balkanized society, and manufactured consent aided greatly by a compliant propaganda arm in the media.
In other words, when “free speech” is a right and “harassment” is a crime, then it all depends on what gets called “free speech” and what gets called “harassment.” If you concede to the proggies their definition of “harassment,” then simple mission creep does the rest.
Fascinating post at Medieval Musings about the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, and especially the coronation mantle of the first King, Roger II. I always thought Robert Guiscard a fascinating character; he erased the distinction between nobleman and bandit and established a new realm in the wake of the Moorish retreat from southern Italy.
Well, actually it was his nephew who organized Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily into a Kingdom. Behold, his gear:
What followed was the standard story: Roger’s grandson William II spend his reign alternating indolence and invasions, and died childless. After a brief usurpation by his cousin Tancred, Sicily became the playground of the Holy Roman Emperors. Hilarity and Aragon ensues.
According to Nobody Move!, Charles Harrelson killed a federal judge in 1979 at the behest of a drug dealer. It was the first time in the 20th century a Federal Judge had been assassinated.
I did not know that.
I suppose I could get myself all worked up about Chris Hayes feeling “uncomfortable” bestowing the moniker of “hero” on our victorious dead, as others have, but I’d much rather try to parse the fellow’s thought process:
“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word hero?” Hayes said. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”
What I think he’s saying (as much as so pretentious and vague an utterance says anything) is that calling our dead soldiers “heros” creates a useful rhetorical device to argue in favor of more war. Which doubtless sounds like an intelligent and useful insight to Hayes. However, like most things that sound intelligent, it’s wrong.
In the first place, wars are never justified by the desire to have more dead people. Or, for that matter, to have more heros. Heroism is the one good by-product of war, and it happens only because war is itself so awful. To claim that anyone in 2003 advertised a few thousand more headstones in Arlington to sell the invasion of Iraq is ridiculous on its face. Wars are always justified in spite of the expected loss, always fought in the hope of averting a worse outcome. Anyone with a basic understanding of history or human psychology should understand that.
In the second place, remembering and honoring our dead looks to the past, not to the future. There is in Arlington a famous monument, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It has stood for decades, and the Army’s 3rd Infantry Regiment has guarded the tomb as long. We cannot know if that soldier really was heroic in battle. For all we know, he was shot by a sniper Somewhere in France while lighting a cigarette five minutes after arriving in his first trench. It doesn’t matter. We call him a hero because he gave his life on behalf of his country. That debt is eternal, and it is the very least we can do.
Consider the Gettysburg Address:
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
Of course, Lincoln erred on the side of humility. And yes, he went on to say that those living ought to renew their devotion to the cause. But his point stands: a hero is a hero before we name him such, and remains one after anyone knows who he was or how he died. We give him the tribute out of the highest and oldest obligation. He went off a sound, healthy man, and vanished into history’s ugly maw. We salute him in the highest of terms to get a little off him back, to repudiate in memory the death that claimed him far too soon. It is a function of mourning, not bloodthirstiness. That sometimes the wounded heart becomes an angry heart does not change our duty to the wound.
Stacy McCain is a man on a mission. Rather, he’s a man wronged; and so determined to bring the wickedness of Brett Kimberlin to the light of day. From an undisclosed location, he’s yanking away the rock this slime’s been sitting under:
I do believe this … what’s the word? … just got real.
I’m late to this party, but BuzzFeed has Obama headlining at an event sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in 1996. I mean, sure, it was also sponsored by the University of Chicago Democrats. How centrist are they? (h/t: Gateway Pundit)
The Templar Knight permits himself a bit of home tourism to Westminster Abbey and reveals a fact I had not known: That the Abbey, which is the chief ceremonial center of the British Monarchy, was largely built by one of … Continue reading