I agree with your words. I simply enjoy making feeble attempts to nudge the Zachriels of the world. A bit mean spirited on my part I admit.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, a nightmare of the Left, Winston Smith was not killed, but ‘healed’.

We’re quite happy with objectivity. Our original contention was that McGurn was comparing apples and oranges, something easy enough to see in this statement:

McGurn: The conservative is rightly concerned with incentives and the long-term effects of any government program for relief, which are vital concerns for workable policy. The liberal is far less abstract: Here are some food stamps so your children don’t go hungry tonight.

Thoughtful conservatives do worry about long-term effects. So do thoughtful liberals. Knee-jerk conservatives reject reforms regardless, just as knee-jerk liberals embrace them regardless.

There has been a great deal of confusion on this thread over basic political science. Left and liberal are not equivalent terms. Leftism advocates equality. Liberalism balances liberty and equality. Rightism advocates hierarchies. Conservatism advocates adhering to traditional institutions, which are often hierarchical.

When McGurn says “The conservative is rightly concerned with incentives and the long-term effects of any government”, he is correctly stating the thoughtful conservative view. While a conservative may accept the necessity of reform, he balances this against the need to preserve important traditions and the unintended consequences of that reform.

The thoughtful liberal will acknowledge the problem of unintended consequences, and attempt to minimize the problem, yet may still press for reform. Ultimately, all reform has unintended consequences, but the world has changed since the days when kings and popes determined all matters of law and conscience.

We cited a number of professional historians. Goldberg is not an authority by any means, and redefining terminology doesn’t make for an argument, in any case.

Brother parker, I think you’re aiming at the wrong thing. Zachriel’s universe is radically different from yours or mine, much as the right’s and the left’s universes are radically different. For me, at least, whether he can read French is not that important. I’m pretty lousy at French, but I think my viewpoint is nevertheless worthwhile (you are free to differ, of course).

Once upon a time we-all could agree on objective reality; I guess that was when journalism and the writing of history were honest attempts to record what is. As you and I both agree, journalism has gradually given way to whoredom (with exceptions, of course); I can’t say when it comes to the writing of history but I am not encouraged.

Anyway, right and left are talking/writing straight past each other now. In many cases, the attempt to bridge the gap is worth neither the effort nor the elevation in blood pressure. (I’ve been experiencing this of late with someone who was once a very dear friend, but who is as left as they come this side of sanity.)

What a state of affairs! And it can be traced to the post-modern dogma that this human experience is totally subjective: that while different people will experience the same event differently, sometimes markedly so, post-moderism does away with the notion that there is an objective reality for people of good will and decent motives to interpret differently.

‘Nuff! See ya . . .

If you really think the omissions are accidental and meaningless and just in the interests of brevity, then you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But I don’t for a minute believe that you really think that.

And no, you don’t understand my point about the lies about Romney. Perhaps you didn’t read the link.

Whatever.

Read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”. There’s not much that I can add to that.

It purposefully skips over most of Julia’s life, only stopping here and there to raise the relevant political points.

neo-neocon: Also, of course, the “Life of Julia” cartoon is loaded with lies about how Romney’s election would have changed things and made life harder for dear old Julia.

In other words, Julia’s benefits would be much the same regardless of who won the election. That’s doubtful, but that seems to be your point.

Papa Dan: It is propaganda.

Of course it’s propaganda, “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument”.

Although Julia’s parents are mentioned right up to the point where she is allowed to stay on their health insurance up to the age of 26, somehow her parents also fade out of the picture when she has that child at the age of 31.

Julia’s life, with all the Obama-facilitated benefits, is most definitely just her and the kid once she “decides” to procreate:

[age 31] Julia decides to have a child. Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.

[age 37]Julia’s son Zachary starts kindergarten. The public schools in their neighborhood have better facilities and great teachers because of President Obama’s investments in education and programs like Race to the Top.

That’s it for family and Julia. But it’s all just an accidental omission, I’m sure.

Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. The point is that Julia doesn’t need help from spouse, parents (once she grows up), or anyone, because she’s got Obama and the federal government.

Also, of course, the “Life of Julia” cartoon is loaded with lies about how Romney’s election would have changed things and made life harder for dear old Julia. But hey, the cartoon worked, didn’t it? And that’s all that matters these days.