Another great article by a political changer
This changer article by Danusha V. Goska is very hard-hitting and well worth reading.
And here’s a companion piece of sorts:
As the political project that exists to vindicate the axiom that all sorts of government program X’s can solve an endless list of social problem Y’s, liberalism is always at risk of descending into prescriptive bullshit. Liberal compassion lends itself to bullshit by subordinating the putative concern with efficacy to the dominant but unannounced imperative of moral validation and exhibitionism. I, the empathizer, am interested in the sufferer for love of myself, Rousseau contended. Accordingly, an ineffectual program may serve the compassionate purposes of its designers and defenders as well as or better than a successful one.
. . .
Conservative critiques of liberalism sometimes concede that liberals’ aspirations are laudable before insisting that the means liberals favor are insufficiently practical and at least potentially destructive. The way liberal compassion lends itself to liberal bullshit, however, argues for a less forgiving interpretation. Liberals’ ideals make them more culpable, not less, for the fact that government programs set up to do good don’t reliably accomplish good. Doing good is often harder than do-gooders realize, but doing good is also more about the doing and the doer than it is about the good. Too often, as a result, liberals are content to treat gestures as the functional equivalent of deeds, and intentions as adequate substitutes for achievements.
Thomas Sowell wrote an entire book about this, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy
[NOTE: One thing that Goska’s article reminded me of is that Hillary Clinton is very vulnerable on the whole “how rape victims are treated” issue that’s gotten so much press lately:
Hillary served as the attorney to a 41-year-old, one of two men accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. The girl, a virgin before the assault, was in a coma for five days afterward. She was injured so badly she was told she’d never have children. In 2014, she is 52 years old, and she has never had children, nor has she married. She reports that she was afraid of men after the rape.
A taped interview with Clinton has recently emerged; on it Clinton makes clear that she thought her client was guilty, and she chuckles when reporting that she was able to set him free. In a recent interview, the victim said that Hillary Clinton “took me through Hell” and “lied like a dog.”
That may come up again if Hillary runs in 2016.]
“she is 52 years old, and she has never had children, nor has she married”
Think about what that means. It is heartbreaking on a very profound level. That is the horrible aftermath of a rape rape. At least Hillary Clinton won her lawyer games.
Obama’s Mitch is gonna rape conservatives who voted for hope and change against Obola:
“There will be no negative consequences for Harry Reid’s abuse of Senate procedures. These abuses include refusing to allow hundreds of House-passed bills to come to a vote and his infamous change requiring only a bare majority to approve most judges, which enabled President Obama to pack the bench of the federal judiciary.
Instead Senator McConnell plans to turn the other cheek. If you think this noble example will inspire Democrats to behave themselves the next time they get control of the Senate, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. “Please sir, may I have another!”
Neil Lesniewski writes an article titled “McConnell Plots a Functional, Bipartisan Senate””.
Read the rest at Mitch McConnell.
1. She probably didn’t need to take that case as she was the Governor’s wife.
2. While a lawyer has an ethical obligation to represent a client, she didn’t need to enjoy it and gloat.
3. The GOP should bring it up relentlessly but won’t. Not tough enough.
Cornhead – you are correct they are not tough enough, nor are they smart enough to so in a way that demonstrates empathy for the victim, and lack thereof by the smartest woman in the world.
Hiring good people would be a start.
If Romney 2.0 or some other RINO does not bring up damning facts like that, then I will not vote for him. If Barack bottom is not bad enough to wake up America, maybe we need the first female president to well and truly discredit liberal fascism.
[ begin chuckle ]
When my eyes first lighted upon “Danusha V. Goska”, I thought it was going to be about a lawsuit, even though neo began by referring to a “changer article by . . .”.
“V.” as compared with “v” did not look terribly significant to me, at first glance. Turns out the laugh was on me.
[ end chuckle ]
“Danusha Goska”, we are talkin a Polish Gal here !
The left are a nasty bunch. Take a look at the comments section of the NY Times if you want to see hate and vitriol.
I don’t doubt for a moment that Mitt, Jeb and other establishment types are unwilling to go after Hillary. They’d give some excuse like it is unfair or counter-productive. The reality is GOP establishment types are actually GOP progressives. The only ‘opponents’ they’ll go after are conservatives.
Don’t forget, Hillary headed up a bimbo eruption squad. She has a lot of skeletons in the closet and many of them are women.
Danusha V. Goska’s description of the depravity of the left is one of the best I’ve read. His number 1 reason for leaving the left is their hatred. Here is how he described the leftists’ posts on an online website he used to frequent:
“If you took all the words typed into the forum every day and arranged them according to what part of speech they were, you’d quickly notice that nouns expressing the emotions of anger, aggression, and disgust, and verbs speaking of destruction, punishing, and wreaking vengeance, outnumbered any other class of words.”
No wonder these people hate Christianity. Here is what Jesus said about judging other people according to Matthew:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-7/
Illuminati, 11:35 pm —
That has to be balanced with KJV John 7:24 . . .
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
@Illuminati
That sounds like you judging them…
Yann Says:
@Illuminati
“That sounds like you judging them…”
That’s so cute.
That Goska article is great.
Here’s another one: Exhibit 1,20302394 of Leftist Mythologizing Lies.
“The Real Anita Hill” by David Brock. http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock01.htm
Brock did some real journalism on this one. Read it; you’ll be astounded at all the Real dirt he was able to dig up on Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas’s accuser. I didn’t know any of this story.
Also, you have to go to the SIXTH page of google’s results before you’ll see anything that’s not adulatory Leftist agit-prop BS about Hill. That’s where I finally found Brock’s article.
The foregoing, of course, is in line with Crystal Mangum of Duke Lacrosse fame; as well as “Jackie” of UVA. But decades ago.
Beverly:
I wouldn’t quote David Brock on that, or much of anything.
Brock is one of the most distasteful characters in the political media, and that’s saying a lot. He was distasteful and a liar when on left or right, and he’s been on both sides, because he had a right-to-left political conversion.
Back when I was a Democrat, I read his book Blinded By the Right, supposedly a description of how he was lying when he was a big writer for the right. Although I was a liberal back then, and you’d think I’d be predisposed to think him admirable now that he was on my side, I found his book completely self-serving trash and ended up not trusting him on any matter. This came as a surprise to me.
Nothing in it rang true. When he talked about why he was initially a conservative (he became a conservative of sorts while in college, if I recall correctly, after first being a liberal; so you might say that his later conversion leftward was really a return to his first roots) it seemed his conservative affiliation was very shallow and not really about conservative principles. Then his change to the liberal side seemed oddly motivated, too. I no longer remember the details, but I found him untrustworthy as a reporter of anything, including his own life and motivations. He seems to be a self-serving guy who goes whichever way the wind, money, and fame go, and is willing to lie for whatever side he happens to be on at that moment.
Here’s a bit about him. And here’s a review of Blinded By the Right that appeared in Slate. It’s by Timothy Noah, who is a liberal, and it is critical of Brock for much the same reasons that I was when I was a liberal:
Thanks for the reply about Brock, Neo.
He is scummy like all the current leaders and their mouthpieces.
Though we may be on different sides on some conservative/liberal issues, I’m always amazed at the depth and insight that you put into your articles and review of the comments your readers make.
If the liberals thought like you, would gladly trust them to thoughtfully run the country and debate the issues. But alas, I’m afraid while you are a deep running silent river, they mostly are shallow babbling brooks. And just to make this even handed, the same dislike goes for the establishment republicans. With their leaders it is also about Power and Control. The citizens are here to serve them, not visa versa 🙁 They are also babbling brooks shallow and vain.
So thank you for being a thoughtful, deep thinking blogger and for sharing some of the “Who” of Neo. Even if you are a classical liberal (just kidding):-)
Sounds like a get-together with my liberal relatives.
Again… all he did was wake up to what they actually represented vs their ad copy… he did not change, other than change sides… he only realized that they did not represent him, his ideas, and his love – and so, went to find those that did.
pretty much every story of change is this same story in some form or another. they love the community, and beloning and ease, then they start getting older, and noticing things. then realize that they are not really that way, then they look to the other sides, hearing for the first time what they actually said, not what the current side says they said, and boing… they move from wence they stood.
its also an explanation of why people rarely do the reverse…
sane people go from delusion to sanity, not from sanity to delusion… if your living a lie you think is truth, real truth brings light in, and from then on, how could one return to the lie? so for the most part this is a one way street…
one easily goes from believing that santa is real, to santa is a archtype symbol people tend to love… how many people go from the knowlege of the archtype, to believing santa is real? its a one way street.
perhaps some here would use neo link to buy
United in Hate – the Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror by Jamie Glazov
Glazov’s father, Yuri Glazov, was a Soviet dissident during the Leonid Brezhnev period, and signed the Letter of Twelve, denouncing alleged Soviet human rights abuses. His mother, Marina Glazova, was also an active dissident, typing and circulating Samizdat, underground political literature. Glazov’s father took the risk of applying for a visa to exit the USSR. Avoiding imprisonment, Yuri Glazov and his family left the USSR in 1972 and settled in Halifax, in 1975, when Jamie was nine.
Glazov wrote and edited the introduction to David Horowitz’s book Left Illusions
He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of the book The Hate America Left
one can look back to my posts to read the story of changers from the earliest part of 1900 and the revolution, through hitlers socialism, and beyond…
most are free, or you can buy them…
Neo:
This changer article by Danusha V. Goska is very hard-hitting and well worth reading. From the link:
There is an interesting coincidence of articles, where we find out that Ms. Goska teaches school in Paterson, New Jersey. From a variety of sources, we recently found out that in Paterson, only 19 students who took the SAT, which comprised only 3.2% of Paterson students who took the SAT, had a high enough score to be considered “college ready.” From northjersey.com:
The 1550 SAT score – which includes a relatively new writing test- represents the 57th percentile of test takes. Only 3.2% of Paterson test takers scored at or above the 57th percentile. The 1120 average SAT score for Paterson means that the average Paterson test taker falls into the 11th percentile.
I suspect that a large reason for the low SAT scores is keeping students in bilingual education too long. Recall what our changer wrote:
A Google hit for “bilingual education” at Paterson Public Schools website got 884 hits. Not a coincidence with “truncated pidgin,” I suspect.
Bilingual education should be a bridge- no more than a year or two. I suspect that students in Paterson are stuck in bilingual education for years and years, which will put them at a disadvantage for the SATs. And more.
The same semester I heard an Education professor inform our class that traditional total immersion methods for teaching ESL students “didn’t work.” I read about baseball great Manny Ramirez, then with the Indians, taking English classes because he didn’t speak English very well. He was 25 or so at the time, and had been in the US for around 13 years. And he didn’t speak English well, courtesy of years of “bilingual”[Spanish monolingual] education. Anyone who comes to the US at age 12 should have a good oral command of English within several years.
http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables
http://www.northjersey.com/news/latest-sat-results-number-of-paterson-college-ready-students-drops-to-19-1.1109193
http://tinyurl.com/mczvfr9 Google hits on “bilingual education” at Paterson Public Schools website
http://www.my9nj.com/story/27515692/only-19-paterson-students-ready-for-college
Great article that exposes all the venality and destructive tendencies of the Left. Should be required reading for all college freshman.
Anyone who intends to join the Left should, at the very least, ask them to point to some of their successes. Point to times when they have created egalitarian societies, economic success, and widespread happiness. It’s a simple question that has no, NO, examples. None!
Our very own Artful Dodger [Artfldgr], who sometimes gives us the Dickens:
one can look back to my posts to read the story of changers from the earliest part of 1900 and the revolution, through hitlers socialism, and beyond…most are free, or you can buy them…
Yes, we can. Bella Dodd, Freda Utley, to name just a couple.
While I was born and raised in bluest lib-land- how many times during my childhood did I hear about the innocence of Alger Hiss, for example- what helped me from going over the edge was the disproportionate numbers of Iron Curtain refugees in my home town. I lived with them, I worked with them, I attended school with their children. What impressed me was not what they said, but what they didn’t say. They did not want to revisit their memories of life behind the Iron Curtain- which some explicitly stated. “I don’t want to talk about it.”
Mike:
Thanks very much.
Off topic//
I’m getting a redirect to some ad via “vindicosuite.com” that isn’t loading properly. I keep having to “Disable javascript” in order to see the comments; then whenever I refresh the page or switch to a different post, javascript turns itself back on, I get routed to the ad-that-won’t-load, and I have to switch javascript off AGAIN.
Sheesh. It’s not *supposed* to be this much work, is it????
A_Nonny_Mouse, I don’t know what browser you used, but I use Firefox. AdBlock Plus stops the ads pretty well.
Incidentally, I put my mouse on the AdBlock button, and it turns out that the third most active filter- meaning that AdBlock filters it out- is for
“vindiciosuite.com” The second most blocked site is an Amazon widget.
Before you discount David Brock’s writings on Anita Hill, just because he has switched sides and not always acted in an honorable way, I would suggest that those skeptics go back and read what he wrote on Anita Hill. At the time it was pretty convincing to me. Granted, it was nearly a quarter century ago.
On topic again:
“…Too often, as a result, liberals are content to treat gestures as the functional equivalent of deeds, and intentions as adequate substitutes for achievements.”
= = = = =
Isn’t that the “Cargo Cult Mentality” that some commenter had mentioned a year or so back, and that I’ve referred to as “verbal tokens”? The Liberal proffers the Verbal Token (pick a meme: Social Justice, or Equality, or what-have-you) and it is recognized by other liberals as not just a reference, but as “The Thing Itself”.
(And to revisit the notion of “Liberalism-as-Religion”, this is the equivalent of Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, right?)
I just don’t know how they do it; or rather, how they can KEEP ON doing it, since it’s all obviously phony/ ersatz/ false/ pretend/ non-Real/ illogical/ The Emperor Has No Clothes!! despite their desperate proclamations to the contrary…
Gringo:
I do not care what David Brock wrote about Anita Hill. I would not believe what he wrote about anything or anybody, and I mean that literally: he is that mendacious. Lying is his normal modus operandi—lying in the service of David Brock.
To paraphrase what Mary McCarthy wrote of Lillian Hellman, “Every word he writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.”
Also, read this for a little taste of the Brock reliability.
Neo
I do not care what David Brock wrote about Anita Hill.
Until you come up with a point by point refutation of what David Brock wrote about Anita Hill, I will stand by my interpretation of a quarter century ago: David Brock made a good case that Anita Hill was not credible.
Richard Nixon was a sleaze about Watergate, but he was correct about Alger Hiss. Bad in A doesn’t necessarily mean Bad in B.
Gringo:
Why on earth should I waste time coming up with a point by point refutation of a guy who’s lied continually throughout his life? For what?
I watched the Anita Hill Clarence Thomas hearings in real time, back when I was a Democrat. I thought they were absurd, and an extreme example of a he said/she said tangle, impossible to sort out in terms of who’s telling the truth, and nothing I’ve read since has changed my mind. What’s more, even if Thomas had been guilty as charged (and I have no idea if he is, but I tend to doubt it from what I know of his character—but people have strange sides), the charges themselves seemed trivial to me, and fell short of what I would consider sexual harassment.
But one thing I do know: David Brock is a serial liar of major proportions. I have no interest in attempting to prove or disprove each of the facts in his book (a task I consider impossible) in order to resolve a completely unresolvable he said/she said charge.
I admire Justice Thomas as it is, and consider him more likely than not innocent. Brock I do not admire.