The American Spectator : Liberalism's Death Croak

Text Size

Liberalism’s Death Croak

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 4.28.11 @ 6:09AM

Its practitioners are no longer capable of engaging their adversaries.

WASHINGTON — While inspecting the body politic, one encounters one clear sign that Liberalism is dead. It is the condition of our political discourse. Polite commentators note that the dialogue is “rancorous.” Some say toxic. Actually it is worse than that. It is nonexistent.

From the right, from the sophisticated right, there is an attempt to engage the Liberals. Budget Chairman Paul Ryan just did it by presenting a budget that cried out for intelligent response. President Barack Obama’s response was to invite Chairman Ryan to sit in the front row for Obama’s “fiscal policy” speech at George Washington University. There, Obama heaped scorn on an astonished Ryan and his work. He did not even mention Ryan’s name. This is what Obama calls an “adult” debate?

From the rest of the Liberals there is generally silence. They prattle on about Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, but they pay almost no heed to the think tanks on the right, to their journals of opinion, or to the writers and figures of heft. The Liberals are dead.

There are the zombies out there. Well-known politicians such as Al Gore or writers such as the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who howls about the Heritage Foundation while fudging that think tank’s findings or about the aforementioned Ryan, but there is no one capable of engaging the serious conservatives. None even tries. Their idea of dialogue amounts to hurling what are lines fit for a bumper sticker—”I Am a Citizen of the World” or “War Is Not the Answer.” Or perhaps they hurl a slur—conservatives are “extreme,” though by now the conservatives have been around for decades and running the country more frequently than not: the Reagan Administration, Bush Administration, and the Gingrich Congress. Have the Liberals not noticed this? As I say, Liberalism is dead.

This has not always been the case. There was a time when Liberals, say, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, engaged conservatives quite brilliantly. They knew what conservatives thought. They could even find elements of conservative thought that they disagreed with without disfiguring that thought and pouncing on the resultant red herring. This is not the way it is today. There has been a change in the politically charged audience in this great Republic.

It is not in the vituperation. The vituperation was always out there. Sometimes it has been delicious. As early as the presidency of George Washington invective was eloquent of the political bad blood between the contending factions. In looking for a secretary of state to replace Edmund Randolph, Washington was turned down by five candidates, the last, Rufus King, explaining to Washington’s agent, Alexander Hamilton, that he had rejected the offer because of “the foul and venomous shafts of calumny” then being heaved at public servants. Washington was disparaged as a monarchist, Hamilton as a lackey. Things have not improved in the public discourse since then.

Yet now something is different. I blame the Liberals. They do not engage their adversaries. They have been able to do this because they have controlled the public media, the Kultursmog. The smog reported their grotesqueries with the utmost seriousness. Thus if you were visiting from a foreign country you might think Glenn Beck a major force in American politics and you might be gravely frightened of Beck and of Fox News. But Beck is only an entertainer and he is leaving Fox News. Some say under duress. Sarah Palin and her whole family might sound like the Marcos family of the Philippines, but she is from Alaska and out of office.

Or take the recent imbroglio between Krugman and the Heritage Foundation. Heritage recently ran Ryan’s numbers through a perfectly mainstream, non-political, economic model, the U.S. Macroeconomic Model developed by Global Insight. Krugman responded in a New York Times column by impugning Heritage’s integrity, claiming Heritage used a model that would force the conclusions that Heritage wanted. Heritage’s Bill Beach called Krugman out in an open letter. Now it has been over a week and not a peep of response from Krugman. As I say, Liberalism is dead, and its nigh unto totalitarian control of media has ended. Fox News, talk radio, and the Internet have arrived. Raise a toast to free speech.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (197) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 6:29AM

Well, it's nice to hear that they used Alinsky tactics in Washington's days before Alinsky was Alinsky.

The real test here is patriotism. No good politician would lie to the American public, yet we see the politicians caught in their own web of lies again and again.

Although the liberals have it down to an art, the entire city of Washington plays into it, neither side giving an inch while the public sees the national debt run up to higher and higher levels.

Neither political party has even taken a serious swing at the real problems. The Ryan plan is timid in many ways but it's what you get out of a political sausage factory and Congress is good at making sausage if nothing else.

This does not portend well for our immediate economic future because Congress is caught is stasis, and the last few bills that made it through further balkanized the country because they were chock full of federally mandated racial and gender bias.

At some point the economy will force real change. Congress is not about forcing real change or adhering to the Constitution.

The Congress has simply become a conduit, a mere convenience, where the Treasury is looted for political purposes and that's been done by both parties.

Both parties have perpetrated one fraud after another onto the public and the latest budget deal was but another example.

It's not about liberalism although that's a root cause. It's simply about deceit and the Congress has more then enough deceit present to stay in business as long as the house of cards doesn't collapse.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.28.11 @ 8:08AM

Hold that thought, probably the most valid perspective found here in quite some time. Liberalism dead? Only one of the many casualties.

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 2:49PM

"The Ryan plan is timid in many ways but it's what you get out of a political sausage factory."

No, it's what you get out of a timid ELECTORATE.

Personally, I like the Ryan plan because it has a chance of being enacted. I'd love a more Draconian approach, but anything more Draconian wouldn't stand a chance. It would be shot down by everyone to the left of a moderate Indie.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 3:48PM

Yes, it's always better to go down timidly, then to go down fighting. People will remember your lukewarm approach to fiscal insolvency while they are standing on corners selling apples and wondering what the hell happened.

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 7:58PM

I don't really think you need to sneer at me and call me lukewarm. I was making an observation about the electorate in general. Better to adopt a moderate approach than have another four years of Obama, who is only ONE Supreme Court Justice away from destroying us beyond any hope of repair. I'd rather have a gradual fix the voting public can endorse than the immediate destruction another Obama appointee would bring down on us, thank you very much. A gradual plan like Ryan's might be acceptable to the current electorate. Even that is doubtful after the squealing we saw in Wisconsin.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 8:08PM

Yes that gradualism is certainly hitting the big homers that will stick in people's minds. We saw it in McCain (LOSER!) and have heard for years about how it will bring success. It will not. And by the way, it's not sneering at someone to reveal a fact or the truth. It's only a sneer when it is denied.

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 10:40PM

The present idiocy wasn't created in a day and it won't be destroyed in a day. I understand your frustration, but IMO, the electorate at large will not support your position and vote for it. They MIGHT support a Ryan-style plan. And if the conservative candidate talks as you do, Obama will win a second term because the electorate at large is too timid for Draconian cuts. As I said, look at Wisconsin if you don't believe me. You don't need to take your frustration out on me by being insulting, and yes, you were being insulting and sneering when I have given you no cause to be. Surely people of good conscience can agree on principles and disagree on the rapidity of implementing those principles in a civil fashion. Or are we too far gone for that?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.29.11 @ 5:59AM

So the Republicans should continue to be timid? If that's the case then why would anyone vote for them? Makes no sense. As far as Wisconsin they are fighting the good fight and THEY ARE WINNING! So, in fact, I don't believe you.

And your assumption that I'm frustrated takes patronizing to a new level. People who patronize others are the ones frustrated and it shows.

IzeHavitt| 4.28.11 @ 4:41PM

Idalily, You've hit the political nail right on it's head. There's the key, folks. Politics is the art of the possible. It's one thing for the rank and file electorate to make known it's wishes (read: The Tea Party); it's another thing to know what's politically feasible AT THIS TIME. You can say what you want about the Republican leadership in the Congress, but they have a far better grasp of that "territory" than thr rank and file do. Change has to be done in increments. Wholesale change- at a time when the people aren't ready for it- will only breed more dissatisfaction. Here,too, is why this nation was not to be a democracy, but a democratic republic.......if we can keep it.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 5:04PM

Yes, we observed the art of the possible when the Republicans fought like hell to get a 3.3 billion dollar spending increase.

Some of the comments show that the Republican leadership actually thinks they are going to get away with it.

No they won't.

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 8:01PM

Thank you.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 8:21PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12.....5pear.html
In defending their work, members of Congress love to repeat a quotation attributed to Otto von Bismarck: “If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.”
Enlarge This Image

Tom White for The New York Times, top; and Bettmann/Corbis
In other words, the legislative process, though messy and sometimes unappetizing, can produce healthy, wholesome results.

But a visit to a sausage factory here, about 10 miles from the Capitol, suggests that Bismarck and today’s politicians are mistaken. In many ways, that quotation is offensive to sausage makers; their process is better controlled and more predictable.

dale emde| 4.28.11 @ 7:24PM

Mr Tyrrell and Bill Hussein are very good at analysing the present situation but darned if I understand why they and their peer group never go after the root causes of all of these problems, the people and groups of people who have been planning to gain control of the entire world! Why are they not the target? We have the Fed Reserve, the huge banks around the world, the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the tri lateral commission, Kissinger, Soros who gleefully crashes countries and gleefully helped his father work under the Nazis and so many others including many of our own Congress and Senate? Is it because their group of commentators don't have the fire in the belly anymore to go after this ultimate evil because THEY are comfortable and don't wish to be bothered with a really difficult task which NEEDS to be done! I'd appreciate an answer. Dale

answer4everything| 4.28.11 @ 9:01PM

Totally agree.

I've often advocated the position that the mere desire to hold elected office should disqualify one for office.
How about write in only ballots with campaigns outlawed. Anyone caught advocating or spending money to be elected is automatically disqualified. The only criteria anyone had to go on would be reputation. How do your fellow citizens percieve you? If I found my butcher or barber to be intelligent, informed, forthright and fair in my dealings with him/her, why not write them in for mayor, our councilman or whatever? I could see this working at the local and county level. Still working on statewide and up. :) Maybe consider local and county level as the bush leagues that you recruit from for higher levels? At least they would have a voting record and wouldn't be able to use pretty words alone.
Just tossing ideas out there. I don't know what the final answer will be but I'm positive that something has to change or America will tear itself apart. I fervently hope I'm not around to see that. And I am extremely sorrowful that my progeny will be.

doolittle| 4.29.11 @ 12:12AM

I recall whenour state representative in Ohio actually was the local butcher, and a darned good one in both jobs.!

Darin| 4.28.11 @ 7:07AM

I'd be more than happy to have an adult conversation with a liberal if I could find a liberal who behaved like an adult.

Jeremiah| 4.28.11 @ 2:15PM

Having captured the establishment media, transformed the university into a center of indoctrination rather than examination, and adopted Hollywood as a press office the Left for over 40 decades was safely able to engage in monologue rather than dialogue.

Now that alternative media (and the abysmal failure of the left's theoretical policies when transformed into action) monologue is not sufficient to impose their will on the public. But, alas, the price of all those decades of enforced dominance has come with a terrible price: hardening of the intellectual arteries which has made the left incapable of dialogue and impervious to evidence and reason.

They should have seen it coming by the abysmal failure of all their talk-radio hosts who were going to be the 'liberal' Rush Limbaugh. You see, hate him as you might, Rush engages in actual dialogue with his callers. It keeps both his and their wits sharp. The liberal pretenders were invariably astonished when a caller disagreed; either speechless or reduced to name-calling.

I do look forward to all the movies and and books depicting the travails and triumph of compassionate, courageous young conservatives as they took on the hide-bound, out-of-touch leftists of the establishment to re-assert freedom.

The leftists still romantically imagine themselves storming the barricades. Yes the barricades are there...and they are being stormed. But to paraphrase Pogo, the left has made the baricades and they are them.

ggoblue| 4.28.11 @ 7:08AM

They aren't dead. We have one foot on their neck. We have the other on their wrist. In their hand is the sword of socialism. They squirm mightily. Our balance is precarious. We need john boehner to start kicking their b***s. Where's johnny?

LarryK| 4.28.11 @ 9:32AM

Boehner is part of the Kabuki Theater in Washington and he will continue to growl and hiss but do the bidding of his master.

Indeed, the Dark Side is powerful.

Tim the Enchanter| 4.28.11 @ 11:53AM

(seen on a bumper sticker) "Join the Dark Side... we have cookies!"

talkradio55| 4.28.11 @ 1:49PM

But do they have milk, Tim?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.28.11 @ 7:49AM

Mr. Tyrrell,
if liberalism is dead, what has it morphed into?

Those zombies are still sticking it to us.

Conservative View| 4.28.11 @ 8:09AM

Something that Buffy would put a stake through.

irish19| 4.28.11 @ 9:29AM

Stakes are for vampires. For zombies, you need decapitation.

daboss| 4.28.11 @ 9:47AM

blunt force trauma to the head is the only way to kill a zombie (since they can survive after being decapitated).

SpiralArchitect| 4.28.11 @ 2:48PM

Impeachment?

Strider| 4.28.11 @ 10:17PM

Or either a torch or a bullet to the head (see Night of the Living Dead, the classic zombie flick).

mames| 4.28.11 @ 9:57AM

Liberalism may be dead but marxist/socialism is in full bloom. Just lok at out debt the still active Fed Reserve (which is neither a Federal agency or a reserve but a banking tyranny designed to keep its members afloat at all times, by butt raping the taxpayer using a splintered log) Our problem is not them it is us with guys like Mr Tyrell getting it so wrong and our political country clubbers acting like scared little girls. Take a look at Boehner and his followers HE IS THE PROBLEM. Most folks who post here could make the dems heads spin if given the chance but these pansies are so afeared! It is amazing how many clear thinking folks saw this Boehner mess coming and our pundits did not.

Teaghan| 4.28.11 @ 11:20AM

When on that Nov. night that he cried in front of the nation, I knew we were in trouble and had a well mannered weak kneed sissy in the speakers seat.

JungleCogs| 4.28.11 @ 1:54PM

The Zombie Party; saaay, that's pretty good! Lemming-like followers and Totalitarian leaders who won't go away!

Sid Vicious| 4.28.11 @ 4:44PM

I knew there was a reason why Charlie Rose keeps doing multiple-show specials on the human brain: He's a zombie masquerading as a mild-mannered talk-show host!

Brains... we want your brains... brains...

Bob K.| 4.28.11 @ 2:48PM

As John Lukacs (and he is no liberal) has observed: "......liberalism has, after all triumphed: its self-imposed tasks are done. The other is the overall waning of its appeal, of the appeal it once may have had."

This was from the chapter {Triumph and Disappearance of "Liberalism"} at page 217 of his Historical Essay, DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM. Published 2005 before we heard of Obama.

In a very brief summary and in an oversimplification: All kinds of liberties have been extended by abolishing many restrictions and they have become institutionalized in varieties of ways with many "deplorable" consequences.

I recommend the book.

coal carrier| 4.28.11 @ 8:06AM

The Liberalism of the era of William F. Buckley’s Firing Line is certainly dead. The 2011 Liberalism isn’t one of consultation, reason or discussion. As I heard Dr. Bill Bennett state a couple of years ago, “When Liberals find that they can not add to the debate, they revert to character assassination, innuendo and name calling.

JimmyMac| 4.28.11 @ 8:21AM

Liberals are like cockroaches: you spray them, think they're dead, then suddenly they scurry off to hide, only to come back another day.

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 9:00AM

Boy, Jimmy, you are correct. We thought they were dead, but they weren't. They went underground and multiplied out of the public view once Reagan was elected. We defeated communism abroad, but it hid and festered here. It's time to chop it off at its head.

DL| 4.28.11 @ 1:15PM

JimmmyMac's post on the heels of coal carrier's quote of Dr. Bill Bennett paints a spectacular portrait of irony.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 4.28.11 @ 8:26AM

As an example, the MSM is portraying the recent Paul Ryan Town Hall events, as an example of the American People rejecting Conservative cost cutting measures. But they're wrong!! What I see coming from those Town Hall events (and I'm never wrong), is more takers screaming like little children, who won't negotiate, unless those negotiations result in them receiving even more than they do already, or shall I say taking even more than they do already. And should it come as a surprise to anyone, to see more takers screaming for even more in Wisconsin? That's friggin' ground zero right now for every loud mouth Liberal in America (and Hippie, and Commie too). Liberals in general, just make more noise (and a bigger mess), than Conservatives do (but that's only because we're too busy working and stuff, and they're only busy taking more of what we work for), and the media just loves the crowd that freaks out the most, it makes for better TV. Liberalism truly is dead, but like all good Zombies, they're going to be the last to know this!! Even Zombies want a free lunch of human brains, but of course, they just don't want to pay for it!!

All Liberal-Zombies chanting: "This is what brain matter tastes like-Mmmm!!"

JohnMc| 4.28.11 @ 8:28AM

Mr. Tyrrell,

Do not assume that because you cannot find anyone on the Left to debate the issues that Liberalism is dead. If the Emperor has masterfully overrun the kingdom with his cronism then does the Emperor even have to entertain debate? Liberals today don't believe they have to debate the issues. They control --

* The media.
* The universities.
* A third of the State houses.
* Reigns of power.
* The K-12 schools.
* The unions.

Considering how close the popular vote was in the last election there is far from conclusive proof that Liberalism is dead. Its only that the Right has gotten more vocal which is a different kettle of fish entirely.

93|\/|etro| 4.28.11 @ 7:02PM

The vote was as close as it was because there were a large number of voters that decided to prove to the world that they aren't racists. Only now are they beginning to understand how important a mistake it was to use it in this manner. It won't be nearly as close the next time around.....

Hillel| 4.28.11 @ 8:38AM

I recall, years and years ago "Studies on the Left" called for a reasoned debate with conservatives.
AsI remember the letter began:"Dear Fascist Hyenas,.."

D. Singh| 4.28.11 @ 8:38AM

Sir

The entire piece is a sound observation on the collapse of Liberal thought.

But I wonder why Liberal thought is collapsing?

Could it be because of the contradictions in the procedural structure of its internal thought processes?

The Right tends to think along the classical lines of:

A is A. And A is not non-A. That is, an apple is an apple and not a banana.

Whilst Liberalism thinks along the lines of the Marxian dialectic: thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis.

That is, truth + non-truth = a ‘new-truth’ (projecting the myth of ‘progress’)

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 4.28.11 @ 8:50AM

D. Singh: That's deep Sir!! I'm not sure I completely understand it, but I think I agree with you anyway? But I did like the banana part a lot!! A banana can't be an apple, because it's a banana!! Even a simple Paratrooper can understand that logic!! Or as I like to say, Liberals not only suck, they blow too!!

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 9:14AM

Thank you, D. Singh -- your last line kind of reminds me of: There's no compromise with evil. You've got evil and you've got good. If "good" compromises with "evil" -- you've still got evil.

Markopolis| 4.28.11 @ 10:39AM

I'm not sure you can call the other side "evil" and then claim that you have been in some way demonized yourself. You can't call your adversary "evil" and then expect to engage him in a reasonable conversation. Are you interested in conversation or in beating the other side into submission? I mean, there's A LOT of violent metaphor flying around in this blog -- a lot of swords and decapitations. Build a convincing argument.

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 11:18AM

If the other side is evil, I can call them that. You're the one who immediately decided that I thought they were evil. What I think is evil is communism and socialism. They make people dependent on the state and the state ends up killing people. That's evil in my estimation. There is no compromise with that.

What is "violent" about a discussion about evil?

Al Adab| 4.28.11 @ 1:09PM

If not evil it is certainly immoral for any person. class or group to presume they have by some right a claim to the earnings, property or possessions of another person, group or class. How we ever became a society wherein some believe they have such a claim is beyond me, yet it defines the political and philosophical battle of our time.

Like you Deborah I though that a stake had been driven into the heart of such beliefs so that no rational person still adhered to them. We await undismayed the coming dawn when such belief is finally laid to rest. May He grant it come quickly if He still hears the prayer of an idolotrous nation.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 10:28AM

Al Adab,

Again, the concept of "earnings" is subjective. Some consider the tax breaks given to the rich and thus the distribution of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy class is unfair and unearned. Others think that if we use new taxation legislature that REVERSES this distribution of wealth that has occurred over the last several decades, that that is unfair and unearned. It goes both ways. We've had redistribution of wealth for as long as I can remember, and now that the middle class has continued to suffer, while the number of billionaires in this country has increased -- reversing that past redistribution of wealth in the other direction is deemed to be "socialist" or "communist", but continuing to redistribute the wealth in the current direction from the poor and middle class to the wealthy class is labeled as "capitalist". It's quite hypocritical and both directions of distribution are possible while still remaining "capitalistic". So the concept of what people think they "earn" is subjective. As I mentioned on another post, some people think that doctors should earn more than CEOs because they save people's lives, and others believe that CEOs should get paid more because they generate more revenue. Which one is a greater societal benefit? That in itself is subjective because it primarily depends on what you value more, saving a life, or generating revenue (in its most simplistic form). Even if you don't simplify it this much, the concept of who deserves more is based on philosophical, moral, and ethical differences. So saying that anything is "immoral" is only based on your ethics and morals -- not the world as a whole, because everyone has a different perspective, and different beliefs.

Peace and love to you Al Adab,
-Lagius

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 2:42PM

Try this argument on Markopolis, to see if it fits better.

Conservative proposals are usually confirmed to provide exactly what is written in them, even confirmed by federal agencies - such as Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

Liberal proposals are usually confirmed by midnight votes, and hidden costs like ObamaCare's $105 BILLION pre-spent surprise, and also confirmed as "pie in the sky" by federal agencies.

Turn the opacity switch lower in your transparency layer POTUS! And next time turn it up much higher in your official birth records releases.

Wake up and smell the roses!

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 12:50PM

Deborah D,

Let's keep in mind that good and evil are subjective anyways -- since one person's "God" is another person's "Devil" -- likewise more generally, one person's view of "good" is another person's view of "evil". Since they are subjective terms, life is always a "compromise between good and evil". It's all dependent on the observer and their beliefs & point of view.

Peace and love to you Deborah D,
-Lagius

Al Adab| 4.28.11 @ 1:11PM

Lag:
Perhaps someday this Faith in moral relativism will too find it's way to the ashheap of history.

Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.| 4.28.11 @ 1:19PM

It is not moral relativism to say that viewpoints differ. That's a point that right-wingers can't stomach. Gee, if we all just thought as you do . . . but, we don't. Thank goodness!

Al Adab| 4.28.11 @ 1:29PM

Dr. Smith:

It is not to agree that views can differ, it is moral relativism to maintain that both are equally valid. Just as it is a moral error to believe that any person, group or class has a valid claim to the property or earnings of any other person, group or class. The Left errs in believing that government can and should be an agent of such expropriation. This is the issue which divides our people and, to borrow the Marxist language, until a new consensus emerges the battle will continue. Let us all hope it emerges soon.

Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.| 12.6.11 @ 11:40PM

Who said viewpoints are equally valid? I just said they differ. Obviously, I think my viewpoint is more valid than yours or I wouldn't have it. Are these "toughies" for you conservatives?

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 2:56PM

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce to you yet another product of our public and higher educational school systems - Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.

Dr. Smith do you have more liberal pap to persuade us with?

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 9:01AM

Al Adab,

The subjectivity of" good" and "evil", or "right" and "wrong" are based on principles in the universe -- duality/complementarity. You can't just wish something to go away, when it is a fundamental property of consciousness, existence, and life. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A person's view of right and wrong are based on their set of ethics, philosophy, religion, etc. These differences between people's beliefs exist within AND outside of our constrained ideological classifications (i.e. "conservatism", "liberalism", etc.).

Peace and love to you Al Adab,
-Lagius

skip| 4.28.11 @ 1:40PM

Mr. Tyrrell states the obvious, liberalism is dead, political discourse is nonexistent due to liberal prattle based on emotion with no response to conservative reason and experience based on logic.

Enter Lagiusmeatius, who recently expounded the vices of socialism in an AmSpec thread, who now expounds on the vices of secularism here, to drive home the self-evident.

The epitome of the liberal, equally disdainful of the Constitutional and Christian foundations of the United States, ignorant to the social, political, and economic realities of every liberally governed state and city in this nation.

Thank you Legiusmeatius for your relative demonstration of the absolute truth stated by Mr. Tyrrell.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 10:06PM

Skip,

I absolutely love your commentary. Enter Skip, who recently critiqued my recent act of expounding the "vices of socialism in an AmSpec thread", yet had no means for critique? I'm anxious for an actual analysis of what I said, rather than some "conservative prattle", where you simply try to somehow denigrate me with meaningless, unsubstantiated rhetoric.
I'm truly anxious for an actual thoughtful analysis.
You choose to label me, lump me into the category of a "liberal, equally disdainful of the Constitutional and Christian foundations of the United States, ignorant to the social, political, and economic realities of every liberally governed state and city in this nation."
Rather than trying to evade the issue with meaningless generalizations, would you like to actually present some examples to support your claims here? Despite what you may think, under the constitution we have the freedom to practice our own religion, so your references to the "Christian foundations" in the U.S. have no relevance here. What realities in the social, political, and economic domain of liberally governed states/cities do you think I'm ignorant of? Would you like to engage in an intelligent conversation with me or just attack my comments with accusations and "conservative prattle"?

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 4.28.11 @ 10:37PM

Sigh.

By sheer fluke I happened to notice on a thread, with a brief scan, your defense of redistribution of wealth. By fluke because your comments to various posters were days after the fact.

Now I'll need to sift through a considerable amount of, yes, prattle, to satisfy your request.

All in what will amount to a foregone conclusion.

Sigh.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 8:54AM

Skip,

Yes, analysis is time consuming, but the challenge itself is rewarding. Just as I analyze your statements or "prattle", you can analyze my actual specific claims (not just "prattle" as you claim, since then you self-justify no real analysis -- how easy is that?). It's a lot harder to actually present evidence and an argument, than to just "critique" someone's character with unsubstantiated false rhetoric, which is meaningless and un-constructive.
Let's also keep in mind, that as Capitalism has remained un-regulated, and taxes have decreased for the upper wealthy class, and certain legislature has benefited the wealthy, the wealth in this country has ALREADY been redistributed from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy class. So are you FOR the past-to-current redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last several decades under the guise of "capitalism", but AGAINST redistributing it the other way through the same types of laws (changing taxation percentages and other legislature through democratic means to tax the wealthy more -- again under "capitalism")? If so, can you see the hypocrisy in that reasoning? Wealth redistribution has already occurred and is most approved by the wealthy (obviously). It's hilarious when people see the wealth going from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, they call it "capitalism", but trying to reverse that direction of distribution is meeting opposition with terms like "communism" and "socialism"...blah, blah, blah. I sense McCarthyism in these types of arguments, where people want to be able to "have their cake and eat it to" as the expression goes. Plain and simple, as the middle class has had their median income reduced since 1967, the number of billionaires has increased during that same time frame. This is due to countless reasons, but the point is, it has happened -- meanwhile the majority/middle class in the country has suffered as a result. Are we the majority (middle class) not to choose legislation that benefits that majority?

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 4.29.11 @ 11:12AM

Three things that qualify for real analysis:

1) I get headaches from reading your posts.

2) You make no distinction of redistribution of wealth voluntarily or coerced, through liberty or through tyranny.

3) The foregone conclusion will be achieved. The logic will be easy to produce. The endurance of the emotional prattle may be worse than waterboarding.

skip| 4.29.11 @ 2:53PM

Oh me of little faith!

You stated "I'm anxious for an actual analysis of what I said". I stated, with not one but two sighs, my dread over such a mundane task that will only result in an inevitable foregone conclusion. We are both in luck, you will receive an actual analysis, and I, having found the aforementioned socialist redistribution prattle I had only seen by fluke briefly, see how effortless the task will be.

This back and forth is a result of your 4/26 response to my 4/21 post where you take issue with my statement that in 2007, under Bush and his tax cuts, the top 1% of income earners paid more in income taxes than the bottom 95% of income earners combined.

You stated "For starters, the 1% that you claim paid more income tax..."
It is interesting in and of itself that you refute my claim, that you do not know whether the claim is in fact true or not, and have responded without actually verifying this claim. My claim is based on the Tax Foundation summary at taxfoundation.org of federal income tax data for 2007 whose source is the Internal Revenue Service. This summary is based on the 141,070,971 income tax filers who reported a positive adjusted gross income. Note this summary does not include any filers who did not report any positive income. The top 1% who paid more than the bottom 95% in income taxes combined are the top 1% of just those who actually paid taxes, not 1% of the over 300 hundred million U.S. individuals.

You stated "You are ignoring the wealth differences between the upper and lower classes."
You further cite wealth disparity numbers. You completely ignore the mobility between classes over time. A brand new college graduate will have income but no wealth as of yet. Middle aged employees will earn the highest incomes of their careers on average while preferably building wealth. Retirees will have no income yet have accumulated wealth over entire careers. Research shows well more than half the population move from one wealth bracket quintile to another in less than every decade.

You stated "Economists DO NOT currently agree on your strategy taxing the rich less."
Virtually every legitimate economist knows every instance the last century taxes were reduced, overall tax revenue increased, and every instance taxes were increased, overall tax revenues decreased. I suspect you cite 'economists' who grovel at the government trough for research grants with the understanding those politicians providing the grants are not disappointed with the results. This is analogous to the 2,500 'scientists' on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who provided irrefutable proof of manmade global warming. The legitimate economists I mentioned are analogous to the 31,487 signers of the petition at petitionproject.org. I recommend you read the short four sentence in length petition they signed.

You stated "It is clear that the lowest class can't afford further taxation..."
No emotional prattle here. What is in fact clear is the top 1% income earners paid more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined (a fact you did not know) under Bush after his tax cuts 'for the rich'. This is instructive when understanding why the Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy which they all condemned as a form of tyranny.

You stated "corporations find ways around paying there fair share..."
You state there is no absolute good and bad yet you know what is 'fair'? Do you know what emotional prattle even means? You didn't even know about the top 1% in 2007 under Bush after tax cuts, after all.

You stated "The wealthy should be taxed more in my opinion as they have demonstrated no ability to self-regulate, hire more workers when profits precipitate. Rather they just further please the shareholders or pocket the profits."
I could crash American Spectator's website responding to this one. I will state the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders. In fact, this form of economic system has accounted for every benefit this nation has ever enjoyed, and done more to eliminate poverty domestically and globally. More important, it is the only form of economic system to eliminate virtually any poverty anywhere and retain individual liberties.

You stated "Their negative effects on the environment as well as 2nd and 3rd world nations have far outweighed any benefit they've provided."
At this point reread this post if you have any questions concerning my position on this statement. Then reread this statement of yours and see if you can determine whether any of it is really emotional prattle.

In the beginning was the word, and the word stated by skip was "political discourse is nonexistent due to liberal prattle based on emotion with no response to conservative reason and experience based on logic."

You sign off with "peace and love to you" to everybody everytime.

If you had your way no one would have any of either. Socialism has never worked. Socialism enslaves. There can be no peace through enslavement. There can be no love through enslavement.

Why do you seek to destroy the peace and love of every single individual on the planet?

Lagiusmeatius| 4.30.11 @ 12:42PM

Skip,

Oh boy, where to begin with you....ok...here we go. Read closely and carefully...

First off, you claim that:

"You stated "For starters, the 1% that you claim paid more income tax..."
It is interesting in and of itself that you refute my claim, that you do not know whether the claim is in fact true or not, and have responded without actually verifying this claim."

When did I refute this claim in my post? If you actually read my post, you'd notice that I don't refute this claim, I just make a point to mention that those same 1% make far more income than the average middle class tax payer. So try again...
-------------------------------

Second, you claim that:

"You stated "You are ignoring the wealth differences between the upper and lower classes."
You further cite wealth disparity numbers. You completely ignore the mobility between classes over time. A brand new college graduate will have income but no wealth as of yet. Middle aged employees will earn the highest incomes of their careers on average while preferably building wealth. Retirees will have no income yet have accumulated wealth over entire careers. Research shows well more than half the population move from one wealth bracket quintile to another in less than every decade."

The mobility between classes doesn't somehow compensate for that disparity. The facts remain that this disparity exists and is only worsening. Tax legislature that favors the wealthy over the middle and lower classes is accelerating this disparity. Disparity based on age is not the issue here. The disparity is between classes with different wealth. Though age and subsequent wealth do play a role in that disparity and allow for SOME class mobility, age alone does not proportionally dictate how much wealth one has between a member of the wealthy class and that of the lower and middle classes. The disparity still exists between some college graduates in the middle class, and some college graduates in the wealthy class. The disparity still exists between a retired middle class citizen, and a retired wealthy class citizen. So try again...

-------------------------------
Third, you claim that:

"You stated "Economists DO NOT currently agree on your strategy taxing the rich less."
Virtually every legitimate economist knows every instance the last century taxes were reduced, overall tax revenue increased, and every instance taxes were increased, overall tax revenues decreased. I suspect you cite 'economists' who grovel at the government trough for research grants with the understanding those politicians providing the grants are not disappointed with the results. This is analogous to the 2,500 'scientists' on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who provided irrefutable proof of manmade global warming. The legitimate economists I mentioned are analogous to the 31,487 signers of the petition at petitionproject.org. I recommend you read the short four sentence in length petition they signed."

Part of the argument is the comparison between tax revenue with a "trickle down effect" vs. a "trickle up effect". This is debated by economists. There is no general consensus between which is better for revenue based on any tried and true economic model. In fact even the Ph.D. economists that played a prominent role in the Bush administration, despite all of Bush's claims as well as those of the Republican party (tax cuts increase revenue), even those Ph.D.'s agree that this claim is false -- that the tax cuts enacted, even after six years had passed, did not pay for themselves. Ironically, Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 03' to 05', devotes a section of his best seller econ. textbook to debunk this claim. The cause and effect relationship has not been proven, because there are two many factors that influence tax revenue, like U.S. domestic spending changes independent of those tax laws, for example. So try again...I'd like to see your source that economists generally agree on this with any predictable model.
---------------------------------------------

Although irrelevant to the economist argument that's been refuted, let's examine "petitionproject.org" just for kicks...
Let's look at what the petition actually states:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Before I analyze this statement in the petition, I'd like to first point out that it is completely obvious that humans DO HAVE an impact on global warming, because we emit greenhouse gases -- so we are contributors, plain and simple. On top of the fact that we also are removing the rain forest over time, the largest terrestrial absorbers of those gases (like CO2) are also diminishing, thus reducing our levels of atmospheric oxygen. The only argument is whether or not our impact is SIGNIFICANT (a subjective term, once again), and also whether or not the impact is DETRIMENTAL to the environment -- another subjective claim -- as there are human ecosystems that may benefit from one state of the environment, and there are many, many other ecosystems that take a fall as a result -- and vice versa. In some cases, there are some short term effects that may be positive and negative, and long term effects that may have completely opposite impacts (negative vs. positive). There are also states of the environment that are a compromise between humans and a majority of other ecosystems. A simple fact, our impact on the environment is obviously existent, but the level and complete scope of the consequences are unknown. This is where the debate stands.

Let's break this petition down into parts. First they claim that the proposed limits "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

First off, as China and the U.S. are the top greenhouse gas emitters, it's obvious, in part, why there is motivation for this petition. Since U.S. produces 30% of the world's waste, it makes perfect sense that there are powers that be that want to keep the status quo. It's also obvious that greenhouse gas limits would at least on some way hinder science and technology -- but this is a price you pay for sustaining the environment. People may want to build more and more power plants, factories, and dig for more and more resources, all in the name of "progress", but if we destroy the environment and our natural capital along the way, then what real "progress" have we made other than destroy what we have to give to the generations to come? How does using our natural resources up, raising sea levels, with subsequent increased number of hurricanes, etc., help the health and welfare of mankind, exactly?
Second, the signers of this petition, do not ALL have degrees in climatology, but rather most are degrees in physics, chemistry, etc. -- thus negating their "credentials" for this "climate" argument. As for the number of signers, here's an interesting analysis on those participants:

“Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers; a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”

This petition has lost a lot of credibility over time, and is continuing to do so as further analysis is performed on it.
As for the manuscript presented with the petition, here is a statement released by the Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was NOT published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other PEER-REVIEWED journal.

No peer reviewed journal they say, huh? Sounds ever more credible...
I do agree with your statement, "the legitimate economists I mentioned are analogous to the 31,487 signers of the petition at petitionproject.org". You are right here, it appears that they are definitely analogous to one another -- both appear to be either non-existent, at least partially incorrect or not entirely credible.
-------------------------------------------

You claim that:

"You stated "It is clear that the lowest class can't afford further taxation..."
No emotional prattle here. What is in fact clear is the top 1% income earners paid more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined (a fact you did not know) under Bush after his tax cuts 'for the rich'. This is instructive when understanding why the Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy which they all condemned as a form of tyranny."

Again, where how can you make the assumption that I didn't know this fact, or that I refuted it (because I didn't refute it)? I refuted its significance on the wealth disparity between the classes. So try again...
-------------------------------------------

You claim that:

"You stated "corporations find ways around paying there fair share..."
You state there is no absolute good and bad yet you know what is 'fair'? Do you know what emotional prattle even means? You didn't even know about the top 1% in 2007 under Bush after tax cuts, after all."

Do YOU know what emotional prattle means? Should we pull out a dictionary? As for corporations paying their fair share -- this "fairness" is based on the premise that all taxpayers are equal citizens under the law. Taxation that benefits the majority, would be considered the most fair. Taxation or economic constraints that benefits the few, is not fairness for the majority. You are correct that the concept of fairness is subjective though, and so I won't try to claim that my concept of fairness is "fact", rather it is just my opinion -- just as your concept of fairness is your opinion. So I'll compromise with you on this one. Fairness is indeed subjective.
--------------------------------------------

You claim that:

"You stated "The wealthy should be taxed more in my opinion as they have demonstrated no ability to self-regulate, hire more workers when profits precipitate. Rather they just further please the shareholders or pocket the profits."
I could crash American Spectator's website responding to this one. I will state the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders. In fact, this form of economic system has accounted for every benefit this nation has ever enjoyed, and done more to eliminate poverty domestically and globally. More important, it is the only form of economic system to eliminate virtually any poverty anywhere and retain individual liberties."

First off, yes, the premise that the "purpose of a corporation" is to maximize profits is also subjective. It's more than probably true that the majority of people in this country think that this should be the primary objective of a corporation, but others, including myself would still disagree that this SHOULD be the main objective.

You say that "this form of economic system has accounted for every benefit this nation has ever enjoyed, and done more to eliminate poverty domestically and globally. More important, it is the only form of economic system to eliminate virtually any poverty anywhere and retain individual liberties."

Says who? This is merely an opinion as it is subjective. Is the corporatocracy that has developed as a result of this system been a benefit to this nation? Not in my opinion. The fact that corporations have demonstrated that they can be protected under the same rights like individuals, and yet be prosecuted under the law as a non-individual -- this seems like another disadvantage for the people in this country. They are protected as an individual, but when laws are broken that are punishable by imprisonment, there are scapegoats that take the fall, and NOT the corporation as a whole (as would be the case with an individual that breaks the law). Is this another benefit that you've realized? How about the fact that many corporations have a vast number of lobbyists and lawyers (and a large checkbook) that can far outweigh any individual plaintiff or defendant's resources in a court of law -- thus reducing "fairness" in a trial against an actual individual. They can be fined millions of dollars for a crime, without skipping a beat, thus providing no incentive for them to avoid the crime in the future. An average class individual in this country on the other hand is severely inclined to avoid breaking the law if those same fines are presented to them as a deterrent. Is this another benefit you speak of? How about 2nd and 3rd world labor that corporations take advantage of for higher profits? The negative impact of U.S. corporations on those 2nd and 3rd world countries, the environment, and the corporate use of resources globally, far outweigh any benefit they've provided (IMO). Actually U.S. corporations have increased poverty in a lot of nations by exploiting them for their resources, building up infrastructure in those nations that don't benefit the majority (rather they only benefit the wealthy people in those nations), and then those nations are indebted to the U.S./corporations for that majority-useless infrastructure. How noble. Corporations donating money to politicians, thus owning those politicians has further separated us from realizing any kind of true democracy or power to the people in this country. You want to talk more about these "benefits"? Corporations in combination with many of our politicians create pressure to go to war with nations that have oil and resources -- with all of that military interventionism under the guise of "protecting democracy". I'm not saying that corporations haven't provided SOME things that I would consider beneficial, absolutely they have, but the greed and overall system that corporations take advantage of have negated many of these benefits and are far from being in the best interests (including retaining liberty) of all the people in this world.
------------------------------------------

I seek nothing but peace and love Skip. That is why I love you too. I love everyone in this world, regardless of our apparent differences. I know we have several ideas and beliefs in common (and you know that we have some common beliefs and opinions as well), and we should be trying to embrace our overlap rather than only focusing on our differences. It is however very helpful to debate, to recognize differences and learn new perspectives from one another. All in the name of progress, despite it's apparent or possible futility (from both our perspectives). I love you Skip.

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 5.3.11 @ 3:30AM

The forest of reason and experience contains virtually countless trees of fact. Reason and experience is based on those facts. You consider a tree and conclude it does not belong in the forest. The location is wrong. It leans. It leans the wrong way. The bark is too rough. Too smooth. Too many branches. Not enough. The shape of the leaves are wrong. The wrong shade of green. Too many. Too few. The tree is too tall. Too short. You discount the tree. The tree is still a tree. A fact. You just don't like it. Based on emotion.

Throughout this back and forth I attempt to provide reason and experience as the basis for my positions and I attempt to express your positions as based on emotion. I consistently attempt to argue my positions with clarity. You refute my positions. Your attempts to argue your positions avoid clarity.

You state over seventy percent of the wealth is held by ten percent of the population. I respond you are ignoring the mobility of individuals between the classes, and that more than half the population move between class quintiles less than every decade. You then state the mobility somehow fails to compensate for the disparity that not only exists but is worsening though age and subsequent wealth play a role in disparity and allow for some mobility but age alone does not proportionally dictate how much wealth one has between one of the wealthy class and of the lower and middle classes.

You state economists do not agree on tax policy on the rich. I respond virtually every legitimate economist agrees over the last century every tax reduction has resulted in a tax revenue increase and every tax raise has resulted in a tax revenue decrease. You then state whether trickle down or up effect is considered by economists debatable as no consensus on which is better for revenue based on a tried and true model and in fact even prominent economists with Ph. D.s agree that the claim is false. You even cite a G. W. Bush administration appointee Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors as supporting your position. Another G. W. Bush administration appointee Treasury Secretary in the past week or so has claimed opponents of raising the debt ceiling are the American equivalent of radical Islamist terrorists seeking to destroy America, which only proves some former Bush appointees prattle.

You state corporations find ways around paying their fair share without any mention whatever is determined to be their fair share will just be passed along to the consumer to pay. You state the wealthy should be taxed more without any mention whatever more is determined to be paid will just be added to their compensation from the corporation they own which the corporation will just pass along to the consumer to pay. You state corporations just further please shareholders or pocket the profits. I respond the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for shareholders. You then state that first off the premise that the purpose of the corporation is to maximize profits is also subjective and that the majority of people think this is the primary objective but others disagree that it should be the main objective.

You state the evils of capitalism. I respond capitalism is the best if not only economic system to not only combat domestic poverty but also foreign poverty successfully in history. You then state this is merely opinion and the corporatocracy that developed as a result of this system has not been beneficial and corporations have the same rights as individuals but are not prosecuted as individuals and is disadvantageous to Americans and corporations are not punishable by imprisonment while scapegoats take the fall and lobbyists and lawyers outweigh plaintiff or defendent resources reducing fairness providing no incentive to avoid future crime and corporations take advantage of second and third world nations for higher profits with a negative impact on foreign labor and the environment and resources globally far outweighing any benefit in your opinion and in fact actually increasing global poverty.

I state economists you cite I suspect are those who grovel at the government trough for research grants with the understanding those politicians providing the grants are not disappointed with the results, and are analogous to the 2,500 'scientists' on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who provided irrefutable proof of man made global warming, not the legitimate 31,487 scientists who signed the petitionproject.org petition that debunks man made global warming. You state that before you analyze the petition that it is completely obvious that humans impact global warming because they emit greenhouse gases and contribute plain and simple, immediately after quoting the four sentence in length petition, in which the third sentence states "There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." You then state removing the rain forest reduces oxygen and the only argument is whether human impact is significant and detrimental as are human ecosystems that may benefit from one state of the environment and many many other ecosystems that take a fall and vice versa and some short term effects that may be positive and may be negative and long term that may have completely opposite impacts negative versus positive and also states of the environment that are a compromise between humans and a majority of other ecosystems and simple fact our impact exists but the level and scope of consequences are unknown and China and the United States are the top greenhouse gas emitters furthermore humans may want more power plants and factories and resources but if humans destroy the environment and natural capital the progress is to destroy what generations to come as used up resources and raising sea levels and hurricanes help the health and welfare of mankind exactly or not and the petition signers do not all have degrees in climatology but rather physics and chemisty etcetera negating their credentials for this climate argument.

You then state a Scientific American article that claimed of the 31,487 signers Scientific American claimed to take a random sample of 30 of which 26 were to be identified in various databases and 11 were claimed to still agree with the petition and 1 was a climate researcher and 2 had relevant experience and 8 signed an informal evaluation and 6 were claimed they would not sign the petition today and 3 did not remember the petition and 1 was dead and 5 did not return repeated messages.

You cited Scientific American, which is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, is well known as a liberal political magazine, and is repeatedly criticized for bias, for not maintaining objectivity in the selection and editing of articles, and for a lack of diversity of opinion within the scientific community.

You then state a Council of the National Academy of Sciences statement that claimed the petition was mailed with a Wall Street Journal op-ed article and a manuscript in a format nearly identical to scientific articles published in the proceedings of the Council of the National Academy of Sciences who wanted made clear that the petition did not have anything to do with them and that the manuscript was not published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences is a politically appointed council established by congress as a honorific society. The petitionproject.org petition website lists the names and qualifications of the signers, the peer review, addresses the peer review process, the summary of the peer review, lists the 132 references none of which are Scientific American or the Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and explains the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change peer review was 'peeer' reviewed by their own members not by peers.

This back and forth has not been a discourse because your argument has consisted of prattle based on emotion while my argument has consisted of reason and experience based on logic. You have been useful in demonstrating this.

If you have your way, each tree will eventually be discounted and eventually removed, one by one, until every tree, each a fact you did not like, is gone. With no forest of reason and experience, you will be left with only emotion to determine words and actions. There will not be the base of reason and experience needed to intelligently and honestly seek love and peace and joy.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.30.11 @ 9:03AM

Skip,

1) I'm sorry about your headaches...critical thinking is a bit

Lagiusmeatius| 4.30.11 @ 9:06AM

Skip,

1) Sorry about your headaches. Critical thinking is a pain, I know...

2) The past-to-present redistribution of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the wealthy class wasn't mutually voluntary, so do you think that reversing this direction of distribution, rather, from the wealthy class back to the middle and lower classes would be mutually voluntary?

3) I'm still waiting for a logical argument on your end...something specific that you disagree with and why.

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 5.5.11 @ 2:14PM

1) An example of critical thinking is the knowledge your emotional prattle devoid of reason and experience causes my logical mind to ache.

2) An example of critical thinking is the knowledge asking you to define past-to-present redistribution of wealth with clarity will only result in emotional prattle devoid of reason and experience likely leading my logical mind to ache.

3) An example of critical thinking is the knowledge you are intellectually dishonest to state on 4.30.11 @ 9:06AM I have not provided logical argument in response to your prattle based on my post on 4.29.11 @ 2:53PM...something even more specific to ponder is my post on 5.3.11 @ 3:30AM however.

Thank you for your relative demonstration of the absolute truth political discourse is nonexistent due to liberal prattle based on emotion with no response to conservative reason and experience based on logic.

I'm at peace you absolutely love my commentary on liberalism's death croak.

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 2:50PM

No Lagiusmeatius, the public school system has obviously convinced you that there is no right or wrong, but remember that a lot of people are not so easily fooled. For every choice - EVERY ONE, there is at least one wrong choice and at least one right choice. And choices are VERY objective, and only called subjective by those who desire to choose wrong.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 10:26PM

BillboTex,

My education background (prior to higher education) consists of public school as well as a Christian private school education. Your point? They haven't convinced me of anything. Both schools had very polarized views on what is right and what is wrong, and I decided to choose for myself. I decided to disagree with both of them, and believe that good and evil are subjective rather than objective like many people (most people I think) would rather believe.

You say that "For every choice - EVERY ONE, there is at least one wrong choice and at least one right choice. And choices are VERY objective, and only called subjective by those who desire to choose wrong." I disagree with your statement here. I do try to employ the golden rule as a sort of subjective form of what is "right" but I understand that even this is at least slightly subjective. We just disagree on this. One person's "god" is another person's "devil". What one person may view as a "good" or "right" thing, another person may view as "bad" or "wrong". It happens all the time in politics, religion, philosophy, sociology, everything. Many times people are able to agree on what they may call "universal truths", but then one day their "truths" are shattered by a non-believer. It happens. It is how the universe works. When you take an antibiotic, you believe you are doing good. The bacteria on the other hand are fighting to survive. They are in an unpleasant environment striving to beat the anti-biotic. In some cases they win. Animals in the food chain, likewise are subjected to predator and prey relationships (as are human beings in many cases), where one's actions or desirable outcome go against what the other is striving to achieve. A person that steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving child may believe that letting their child starve is more wrong than stealing the loaf. They may think that preserving that child's life is a higher moral obligation than refraining from stealing. On the other hand, that bread maker may feel differently. They may feel that stealing is stealing and thus they may prefer a deontological ethical approach rather than a consequentialist approach. Again it's all based on personal morals and ethics. There are philosophical differences between you and everyone else around you, no matter how minor they may seem.
I do agree with you on one thing however -- many times people bend their rules or through some cognitive dissonance, alter their perception of what they've done so it fits in line with their morals and values. These unfortunate beings are definitely not being true to themselves. Anyways, we can't agree on everything. This is strictly a philosophical difference between you and I. I do however respect your opinion BillboTex.

Peace and love to you BillboTex,
-Lagius

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 5:20PM

How about instead of "good" and "evil" we use instead "freedom" and "slavery"...can there be a compromise between those? Are those subjective terms, because those to me are the definition of good and evil, and the definition of what communism (which is the natural progression of socialism) is.

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 5:26PM

In case I was unclear -- slavery is the definition of communism.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 10:36PM

Deborah D,

Freedom and Slavery are subjective as well, because what some consider to be freedom, others may consider to be a form of slavery. In order for me to make a detailed analysis, also depends on your precise definition of freedom and slavery but I'll just make some basic assumptions for simplicity of the analysis. Let's pick a hypothetical situation. Since Thomas Jefferson owned several slaves, I'll pretend to be him. If I were to "enslave" black people for my 5000-acre plantation, and suddenly that right was taken away from me by the North, I may feel that I've lost the freedom to run my plantation the way I want to. I may feel that I'm being enslaved by these laws that are infringing on my "rights" to do so. My right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- as Jefferson ironically stated during the same time frame that he owned slaves. On the other hand, that slave (or those slaves), previously feeling enslaved on my plantation, after being "freed" by the North, may now feel freedom. Their view of slavery and freedoms contrast with my views of slavery and/or freedom (Jefferson's views that is). This is a perfect example which actually uses pretty literal definitions of those terms. There are obviously many more examples like this one where one person feels that rights are taken away while the other feels they are being given new rights. So they are subjective.

Peace and love to you Deborah D,
-Lagius

Deborah D | 4.29.11 @ 9:14AM

Oh my -- I've got nothing to say to this. Muddled thinking IMHO.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 10:35AM

Deborah D,

The truth hurts, don't it? "muddled thinking"?
Really? You think that the fact that Thomas Jefferson had different views of what freedom and slavery meant than his slaves' views -- is "muddled thinking"? You can't deny the truth.

Peace and love to you Deborah D,
-Lagius

Deborah D | 5.2.11 @ 1:11PM

No, that's got nothing to do with anything. If you're the slave --you think it's evil. Communism enslaves everyday people. And, don't put your idea of what Jefferson thought into his head because you don't know.

The truth is slavery is evil -- and you (because you're soooo smart) can't say that. Apparently, if we instituted it once again, you'd be okay with that...as long as you were in charge? Therefore, it wouldn't be evil because you wouldn't think so...just because a slave holder doesn't think slavery is evil, doesn't make it so because he's not being enslaved.

Ridiculous that I even have to write that.

Le Cracquere| 4.28.11 @ 9:19AM

There are perfectly logical and coherent liberals out there. I've seen them. It's possible to construct an intellectually sound case for the Left--not a correct one, in my opinion, but a coherent and consequential one.

However, the Left has overinvested itself in nostalgia for its collective '60 adolescence, and extended it past the point of embarrassment decades ago. For many of them, engaging in the mature debate they're actually capable of feels like a betrayal of their self-imagined inner "youthfulness" and "idealism."

In addition, other posters are spot-on about the Left's ownership of the traditional communications mainstream: for a generation, they haven't felt as if they've HAD to debate anything, or defend their stances in respectable company. A brain gets rusty with disuse. Moreover, it's only human to resent a luxury one no longer has, and to wish to pretend it's still there.

D. Singh| 4.28.11 @ 9:37AM

That's a good point: 'For many of them, engaging in the mature debate they're actually capable of feels like a betrayal of their self-imagined inner "youthfulness" and "idealism."'

I would also add that it would also betray and degrade their sense of self-congratulatory moral superiority.

Truly, pride really does come before a fall - as Lucifer well knows.

skip| 4.28.11 @ 1:45PM

No, there aren't. No, you haven't. No, it's not.

Other than that, great insight.

Le Cracquere| 4.28.11 @ 11:15PM

Caution, dear friend. As the Left is demonstrating abundantly, the road to irrelevance is paved with intellectual complacency and the false belief that the other side has been decisively disarmed.

skip| 4.29.11 @ 11:19AM

Yes, that's wise. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

The other than that comment was not sarcastic though hard to tell upon further review.

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 2:58PM

Sorry, but as reasonable as this sounds, I'm finding it difficult to believe. The reason I cannot regard Liberals as logical is this: if something isn't working, logic dictates that one stop doing that thing and try something else. Yet, generation after generation votes for the same liberal garbage as their cities turn into wastelands. Detroit is not the product of logical thinkers. It is the product of children with with their hands on my wallet, shouting, "Mine! Mine! Mine!"

93|\/|etro| 4.28.11 @ 7:16PM

I stopped calling them liberals a couple of years back. I've been referring to them as progressives. This might be a better fit for some of you.....

skip| 4.28.11 @ 8:04PM

When progressives are too embarrassed to refer to themselves as progressives they refer to themselves as liberals until they are too embarrassed to refer to themselves as liberals when they then refer to themselves as progressives until they are too embarrassed to refer to themselves as progressives when they then refer to themselves as liberals.

Le Cracquere| 4.28.11 @ 11:18PM

Well, I'm not saying that logic is in abundant supply right this moment on the Left. I am saying that certain logical arguments could be marshalled in support of Leftist stances, but possibly thanks to reasons mentioned above, they haven't been.

LarryK| 4.28.11 @ 9:33AM

"The entire piece is a sound observation on the collapse of Liberal thought."

Liberals think???

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 12:55PM

D. Singh,

You say that:
"The Right tends to think along the classical lines of:
A is A. And A is not non-A. That is, an apple is an apple and not a banana.
Whilst Liberalism thinks along the lines of the Marxian dialectic: thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis.
That is, truth + non-truth = a ‘new-truth’ (projecting the myth of ‘progress’)"

Would you like to provide some examples to support your opinion here?

Peace and love to you D. Singh,
-Lagius

D. Singh| 4.28.11 @ 9:00AM

Sir

I should add, for the sake of completeness, that for the Liberal the ‘new-truth’ in its turn becomes a thesis in search of its anti-thesis combining into a new synthesis and so forth.

This may be a profound reason why Liberals can no longer tell the difference between fascism and communism (both products of the Enlightenment).

For example:

unborn child + woman’s right to choose = termination

Warrior | 4.28.11 @ 11:50AM

You sir need to be given a recurring column on this sites blog.

Tim the Enchanter| 4.28.11 @ 11:59AM

Seconded. Maybe you can take John Guarandino's spot- you'd put it to better use.

davelnaf| 4.28.11 @ 9:07AM

Liberalism’s death spiral began with its efforts to defend the indefensible aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Compared to what libs are doing now to keep Obama from drowning in his own incompetence those efforts amounted to garden variety flummery. Back then libs crossed many thresholds in order to keep Bubba from being sent back to Arkansas, but you couldn’t say they were absolutely nuts.

Now, liberals no longer have thresholds to cross—they have crossed them all—and have gone over the edge with their alternate reality concoctions. But their inanities might cause some independents to wonder if there isn’t some truth to what they are saying, as in the entire liberal establishment can’t be insane. This is all they have left in their little bag of tricks.

Andrew Keirns| 4.28.11 @ 9:21AM

RET -- to be beaten by a dead man is the worst. Let's broadcast conservatism's knuckles hitting the community organized street.

Anthony| 4.28.11 @ 9:42AM

Liberalism has always been a false ideology and I can't help but think that old Danny Moynihan would be a moderate Republican at the least if he were starting out today. Our problem is not the lack of serious intellectual thought on the left, our problem is that about 50% of American voters are apt to be convinced to vote for the left in every election. We have a serious demographic problem in the USA that could result in continued left-wing governments tearing the heart out of our once great republic for years to come.

mames| 4.28.11 @ 10:01AM

Oh please no more moderate RINOs. This problem truly began with the Fed income tax ( as Jefferson warned) and the Fed reserve. This lead to 50% not paying any taxes and the rest of us their sugar daddies. Moderates are cowards who will not take a stand.

Bill Diebold| 4.28.11 @ 1:16PM

...moderate republicans are liberals that haven't come out of the closet...yet. Maybe the former Fla Gov Christ (R) would care to elaborate. At least My Sr. Senator here in AZ, J. McCain (R?) realizes that everyone in AZ knows he's just a political whore who will do anything, say anything to get re-elected. He's obviously unemployable beyond nursing from the public teat...as is the case of any liberal. The current white house squatter is another good example.

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 3:12PM

Oh, please. There is a HUGE difference between being a moderate and being a RINO. I wish people would appreciate that difference. A RINO is a traitor to his/her party by running on the party's principles and then behaving counter to those basic principles once elected. A moderate is not like that. A moderate is simply...moderate. Big difference.

Now, if you want to say moderates are useless to the solving of our problems, that's another argument for another day, but a moderate is not a RINO.

Bill Diebold| 4.29.11 @ 1:43PM

...moderate, rino, liberal all pol speak for big gov socialists...they thrive on naïvete like yours.
Take off your rose colored glasses.

mames| 4.28.11 @ 10:05AM

Moynihan was terminally confused, had no real set of principals and absolutely no well defined precepts to guide him. When he was right it was a stopped clock moment. He is and was what is wrong with politics - no guts no consistency of logic, no epistomology.

Tim the Enchanter| 4.28.11 @ 12:02PM

I think you have Moynihan pegged perfectly. 50% intelligence, 50% blarney, 0% wisdom.

JoeJazz2000| 4.28.11 @ 3:03PM

Despite occasional lapses into common-sense conservative thought, someone (William F. Buckey?) once noted that he never once voted against The New York Times.

Ore Gone| 4.28.11 @ 12:57PM

The real problem is that the takers at the Fed teat can just vote themselves more money. This is a problem created by allowing everyone a dog in the fight when some people clearly have no dog. You should only be able to vote if you pay taxes...Period!

skip| 4.28.11 @ 4:22PM

Good thing the Founding Fathers understood this and established a Constitutional Republic so this would never be a problem.

alice moore| 4.28.11 @ 4:44PM

Everyone does pay a tax of one kind or another. In Virginia, even with an old clunker, you have to pay about $150 for personal property taxes. I won't mention sales tax because that is technically a tax on business. You do, however, see it on your sales receipt.

Then there is a popular voluntary tax; the state lotteries.

I could see all kinds of disingenuous that the Libs could use to keep their base voting if such a law came to that improbable pass.

Anthony| 4.28.11 @ 2:21PM

Anthony, I happen to agree with most of your post, save for the issue of serious intellectual thought on the left, there is none. I've asked in the past that you distinguish yourself from me. You deserve a seperate identity for other posters to praise or dismiss w/o our being confused with each other.
That said, RET is correct; the kultursmog created by the left has allowed them to operate in a bubble world completely divorced from the rest of us, while their allies in the LSM have done their damnest to marginalize all conservative thought.
This is why loonies such as Krugman and Matthews are allowed to freely spue such idiocy with minimal or no damage to their credibility.
I am not however, as optimistic as RET that America will get through this without their being a serious calamity.
Free speech alone is not going to win the day. Unfortunately, the left has invaded, like a cancer, key elements of our culture; the media, academia, science, the arts and politics.
In order to re-establish our Constitutional republic, it will require having all the aforementioned institutions cleansed of the cancer known as leftism.
That is not going to be easy nor peaceful.

Jeff R| 4.28.11 @ 9:59AM

Liberalism may be dead, but its heavy hand lays across the nation. We have a national government too big, too intrusive, and too confiscatory. We have a popular culture corrupted and, perhaps, unrepairable for decades. We have an economy hobbled by years of politicians' meddling and manipulations. We have cities that are catastrophes. And we have too many public schools that are glorified warehouses for kids.

Liberalism may be a spent force intellectually, but given its continued insult and injury to American society, it's got the quality of the living dead. When will we finally drive a stake through liberalism's heart and get rid of it entirely?

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 1:12PM

Jeff R,

This will only happen if everyone in the country decides they prefer "conservative" freedoms over "liberal" freedoms. Plain and simple. Most people prefer some of each, and so "liberalism" will never die. As long as people strive for equal rights, it will never die. As long as people strive for the expansion of civil rights including equal women's rights, it will not die. As long as people strive for environmental sustainability, liberalism will never die. Now, does every person that labels themselves a "liberal", truly fight for these causes? No. There are a lot of hypocrites that are lumped into the category, which allow easy "demonization" of the whole group. The term itself is often truncated and generalized where in reality, just like conservatism, there are many branches and schools of thought -- and thus many people with views that have some overlap, regardless of what they call themselves.

Peace and love to you Jeff R,
-Lagius

Ylreveb| 4.28.11 @ 2:13PM

Oh, Lagius, for heaven's sake. A very pompous summation, that. We have ALREADY achieved the goals of civil rights, women's rights, and conservation awareness.

So when do you people stop making ever-more-absurd -- and tyrannical -- demands?

Someone asked union boss Samuel Gompers when he'd gotten enough concessions. "What do you want, Mr. Gompers?"

Gompers said, "MORE."

Like a planet-killing machine that has achieved its purpose but keeps killing, Leftism needs to be stopped. Oh, and all those "noble goals"? They aren't the motivators for those in Power. Those in Power want . . . MORE. Forever.

Drunken Sailor| 4.28.11 @ 2:43PM

"As long as people strive for equal rights, it will never die"

But Lagius, that is the point. Most liberals only "claim" to want equal right. Most have them already, others distort what a "right" consist of and lumb in privileges as rights. Still others disguise the fact that what they really want is to be given what they have not earned, disguised as their right. Most Liberals (modern definition) are like teenagers. Ask them what a right is and they lump in self centered desires and call them a right. Like driving is a right, murdering a unborn fetus that would inconvience them is a right, having health care garunteed is a right. Wrong, they are all privileges (even the immoral ones). Today's Liberals are not really liberal in the classic sense, they are progressives. They simply use the Liberal term to muddy up the waters of their ambitions.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 9:45PM

Drunken Sailor,

I agree with you in part, that many liberals (or people claiming to be) do "claim" to want equal rights, but fail to deliver. Most do not have equal rights however. Again, you are misinterpreting the law's for equality for the general acceptance of those rights in society -- two different things with a far from complete correlation. You say that others "distort what a "right" consist of", but honestly Drunken Sailor, that's where many people have ideological differences -- differences on what that word means and where its boundaries are. Some say that they want the right to equality, and others say that they want the right to refuse black or white people from their establishment. Rights are not objective by any means, and that's half the battle. Even within truncated, generalized ideologies, conservatives and liberals, within their own "parties" have disagreement on what these rights should be -- so I completely acknowledge that. Absolutely. The other subjective term is describing what people have "earned". Some say that labor is the only way to truly earn income or capital. Some say that intellectual property should be given more earnings than labor. Some believe that people should be paid the same for every job no matter what, because we are all equal members of society or the human race. Others believe that they should let the "market" decide what they "earn" (where the market itself is based on an un-regulated, honor system -- we've all seen how that has failed in the past). Some think that people that save other people's lives (such as doctors) should get paid more than a CEO of a company (since they believe that saving lives should earn a larger salary) -- and others think that since those CEOs generate more income than that life-saving doctor, that they should be paid more. In short, some people value money more than life. Some people value capital more than life, and vice versa. So even an argument suggesting disagreement between what is rightfully earned is subjective as its based on your ideology and values as a human being. What you think someone has earned or deserves clearly depends on what you value most, and in many cases depends on what you think will benefit society the most. I'm pro-life myself, so I completely understand your disagreement with people thinking that they have the right to kill their fetus and not be held under the same prosecution as any other murderer. Likewise I think that capital punishment and killing in the military is equally wrong -- killing is killing period. However, I also believe that in a direct circumstance of true self defense (not in the military where your are consciously placing yourself in a deadly situation), I believe that fighting to save your own life is permissible. I believe that in this country, health care should be a right, as well as basic education. I believe that our communities should strive to accommodate this, and thus, I don't believe that we need a taxation system to accomplish it (if enough citizens were proactive enough to donate their time and resources to accomplish it. Helping the poor in this country that can't afford to participate in the for-profit health care industry, or with education I feel is my responsibility. If one day, I lose my job, or get seriously injured, etc., I'd want others in this country to scratch my back too. I'd hope that enough people in this country care to help me out if I was in need -- because I would and do help people in need in many ways NOW while I'm able to do it. I believe in that community responsibilty, rather than a "every man (or woman) for themselves" approach. I prefer to employ the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would want to be helped if I'm in need, and so I will help others in need. Plain and simple. Does this mean that I agree with the way all the social programs are run and implemented? Absolutely not. There are many flaws in the current system which need to be addressed with serious reform to reduce dependence on those programs while still providing the resources for people that are truly in need. I won't muddy up any waters for ya Drunken Sailor. If you're interested in my ambitions, feel free to ask away!

Peace and love to you Drunken Sailor,
-Lagius

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 8:51PM

Ylreveb,

You say that "We have ALREADY achieved the goals of civil rights, women's rights, and conservation awareness"...are you joking?
We're definitely on the right track, but we are far from having a true egalitarian society where men and women are treated equally. We are far from achieving a universal acceptance of civil rights. We are far from achieving ACTIONS that demonstrate environmental sustainability --since currently we do not have it. In fact, if we continue using resources at the rate we do, with population and resource needs increasing as they have been over the past 100 years, we will run out of many of those resources within 100 years. So you think that we've achieved "conservation awareness"? We don't even have a consensus on our impact on the environment. If anything we have a limited scope of our impact, where our current knowledge of human effect on the environment is, if anything, underestimated-- since the global biosphere is so complicated. We do recognize many of our negative effects on the environment, yet many people's actions (or lack thereof) demonstrate that they don't care about the next several generations and what they'll inherit. We have access to know how many resources we use. We know that they are limited, and are being used at ever higher rates (mainly the U.S. which comprises about 30% of the entire world's resource use, and produces 30% of the world's waste). We have people that honestly could care a less about the environment, and the U.S. as a whole has a larger impact on this environment than any other country in the world. So tell me another one about our "conservation awareness"....please. We have a lot of work to do here. Does this mean that every single "effort" for the environment is sincere and not profit driven, etc.? Absolutely not. However many of the actions taken are sincere and for the betterment of the planet -- our planet.

As for women's rights, we still have people in this country that believe that women should be subservient to men. We have yet to elect a female vice-president or president. Do you think its because women aren't capable? I certainly hope you don't think that. There are many reasons why women on average are paid less than men -- even with similar job titles, duties, and responsibilities. There are many reasons why there are often double standards with men's sexuality versus women's. There are many reasons for why the pornography industry profits so much -- off of dominating and abusing women (often times), and exploiting their bodies (a two way street here, but the demand for the pornography drives the industry). There is no complete equality, not yet, but we are getting closer. Let's face it, we've lived in a patriarchal society for many years and only recently has this started to change (in the last century). Women have been oppressed for thousands of years. You think that by women finally obtaining voting rights in just this last century (19th amendment passed around 1920), that this means that society has absorbed and fully equilibrated an equal society? Sorry but these "blemishes" don't just disappear that quickly. They are dynamically molding the fabric of society with every new generation of women.

As for other civil rights, we still have many people in this country that are racist, bigoted, and severely prejudiced -- where they don't want "everyone" to have the same freedoms that they have (whether it's due to race, sex, age, culture, religion, etc.). Do you think that the struggle is over because some of the laws have changed? Do you think that the laws that have been enacted have just fixed all the problems? You can't seriously believe that, do you? You think that we've "achieved the goals of civil rights"? Are you joking? On the other side, we have controversial and racist laws that exist (like affirmative action) which try to address some of these racial problems because people aren't self adopting those values. We enact laws that say "don't discriminate", and then we have employers that only hire white people, or only hire black people. How do any of those laws truly prevent that discrimination? They don't. Certain policies like affirmative action (which have been enacted by certain "liberals") are racist in my eyes and I don't agree with them. Those policies do have some good intentions to fix certain racial issues like those I described, but they do so through racist means as well. If everyone truly wasn't racist, we wouldn't have people trying to adopt those policies (because there would be no motivation to). We have people that are discriminated based on age, where the elderly in this country are severely mistreated and often taken advantage of. They are often thrown away by society, and left to fend for themselves -- and then when SOME of them have no pro-active community or family to help them -- depend on things like social security, medicare, and other socialized programs to eat and pay for medical care. Our we to let our ancestors "fend for themselves" after all they've done for us? We have a long way to go on civil rights.

Civil rights? Women's rights included? Environmental sustainability? Yeah, perhaps you're right....when will "we people" stop making "ever-more-absurd -- and tyrannical -- demands?"
I love how you lump me into the group "you people". I won't lump you into any group. I know that you disagree with many people claiming to be "conservatives" on certain issues. We don't all agree on everything. However, I bet you'd still want to be classified as a conservative, right? Even though you may disagree with another person with some "conservative" views. This is the problem with these generalized, truncated labels. I do not classify myself as liberal or conservative because I refuse to limit my ideologies with such a black and white rationale. We see these disagreements everyday with different conservative and liberal schools of thought and as I said in my last post, there is at least SOME overlap between most "liberals" and "conservatives" which most people care to ignore rather than embrace (our own politicians also do this often for political reasons -- rather than just admitting that the other person was right). I choose to embrace this overlap, as well as the golden rule as often as I can.

Peace and love to you Ylreveb,
-Lagius

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 3:04PM

Lagiusmeatius, you forgot to type "AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS" after each of the liberal goals you mentioned?

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 9:03PM

BillboTex,

"AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS"? Are you not a contributor to this society? Should you or other specific people not bear the burden of sustaining our environment, or enacting civil rights, including women's rights? Are you not a part of this world? Do you not consume resources like everyone else does? Do you not agree that efforts should be made to increase equality in this country -- true equality? Should everyone not be responsible for their actions in this world, and have the awareness of their effect on the others around them? Yeah, I guess you think that change is FREE. I guess you think that SOMEONE ELSE will pay for it. Someone else will deal with it. The next generation can deal with it, you don't need to bear any of the expense right?

Peace and love to you BillboTex,
-Lagius

Strider| 4.28.11 @ 11:18PM

Why don't you just come out and admit that this is your ultimate "true equality"goal -- no doubt with yourself as the Handicapper General. At least then you'd be honest.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 10:58AM

Strider,

Can you be more specific? Admit what? That we all have a responsibility to the human race and society if we expect to participate and benefit from it? Yup. I admit that. Anything else you want me to admit to? I haven't lied about one thing on my posts. Honesty? That's all you'll received from me so far. If you doubt that I'm being honest about something in particular, I'm all ears...speak up.

Peace and love to you Strider,
-Lagius

skip| 4.28.11 @ 6:33PM

Your post was in essence prattle based on emotion.

The responses to your post were in essence reason and experience based on logic.

Thank you for your relative demonstration of the absolute truth stated by Mr. Tyrrell.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 9:11PM

Skip,

Just because you may not like the truth, doesn't mean you need to call it "prattle". As for emotion? Yeah, absolutely. I am an emotional person. I am a human being who expresses those emotions to help recognize that humanity, that liveliness, that joy for life. Recognizing the importance of those issues I mentioned in my previous post is nothing more than my recognition and use of the golden rule. You are very welcome for my input and I hope we can embrace each other's viewpoints, and hopefully find some overlap (now or in the future). I assume that you didn't vote for Obama either, so we do have at least one thing in common! Here's to many more!

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 4.28.11 @ 9:58PM

Let us be really hopeful and try to find some overlap now. Is there absolute right? Is there absolute wrong?

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 11:01AM

Skip,

No I don't believe there is. Are you pro-life? I am, so perhaps we have that in common though. Maybe not. I won't make any assumptions about you, but I can still search for some overlap between the two of us. Do you believe in the right to bear arms? I do. Maybe we have that in common to. Do you believe its important that we take care of our environment for our prosperity? I do. Maybe we have that in common. I know there is overlap, whether or not you believe so.

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 4.29.11 @ 11:38AM

You began "Just because you may not like the truth..."

What is the truth when there is only relative and no absolute? We have already traveled so deeply into the abyss of emotional prattle even logic, reason, and experience will an exercise in futility.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 5:32PM

Skip,

Simple. I'll explain it so you can better understand. Right and wrong are subjective, however facts are not. Facts are facts. Whether or not someone thinks that those "facts" are right or wrong is subjective -- regardless, if something happened, it happened. It's true that what exactly happened is also based on perception and evidence of observation, historical records, etc., but moral subjectivism is different from "factual subjectivism". See the difference here? Now its true that some people falsely claim that something is fact when it is not, but it isn't subjective. It is based on solid, agreeable definitions of what happened. "Truths" likewise are dependent on if someone is actually employing logic to realize it -- where again, rather that it being subjective, it's a matter of being true or not. To explain more deeply, choose an example of something I said specifically that wasn't "true". Then we'll delve into this deeper.

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 4.29.11 @ 8:40PM

Simple, I'll explain, here, that, you can, use, as 'an example of', 'something', you, specifically said, 'that wasn't', '"true"', in order to, 'delve into', 'deeper', any, of, the many, specific, things, which, I, pointed, out, where, you, said, something, that, wasn't, true, as, revealed, in, my 2:53 pm post, above, so, that, when, that, has, been, accomplished, and emotional prattle, is truthfully, factually, and objectively, determined to be emotional prattle, and reason, is truthfully, factually, and objectively, determined to be reason, and experience, is truthfully, factually, and objectively determined to be experience, and logic, is truthfully, factually, and objectively, determined to be logic, I will then, ask, so you can better understand, the simple question, once again, in order to, elicit from you, an actual answer, such that, we can then, 'delve into', 'deeper', to determine, the extent that, emotional prattle, reason, experience, and logic, does, or does not, factor into that answer, so, it can better be understood, in simple terms, simply, truthfully, factually, and objectively, so, you will understand, simply.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.30.11 @ 8:50AM

Skip,

I'll ask this for obvious reasons...How are the shrooms?

Since you failed to give me an example of something I wrote that you find to be not true, and instead resorted to an emotional breakdown, I'll accept this as your white flag of submission.

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

skip| 5.3.11 @ 3:37AM

The white flag of submission has flown. I agree. Imitation in extreme to the point of absurdity of your arguments avoiding clarity has revealed you to with clarity state it as emotional breakdown. Prattle. Imitation of your prattle. The point is driven home posted above at 5.3.11 @ 3:30AM.

alice moore| 4.28.11 @ 4:59PM

Something like this has always been around for all of recorded history. I recently read some books on The War of the Roses between the English noble families of Lancaster and York.

The Lancasters, when in power, awarded posts and titles to cronies and sycophants. Things such as roads, and law enforcement suffered in quality when Henry VI of Lancaster was on the throne. Their argument was that Lancaster was the senior house, while York was the junior house.

The Yorks, with the exception of the Duke of Clarence, seemed to appoint competent administrators and justly heard all petitioners. Edward IV and Richard III were not angels, but, they were clearly English patriots. There was a respect for the rule of law in the House of York.

The Lancasters, when out of power, conspired and sided with England's adversaries just to get their butts on the throne. They seemed to be medieval Quislings.

I just couldn't help noticing the parallels between the Lancasters and Yorks of yore and today's Leftists and Conservatives.

Dan Hirsch| 4.28.11 @ 10:08AM

Yes, classical liberalism is definitely dead. It used to cloak the naked, unabashed self-interest of the progressives. The ones who say they want to protect the little man, the workers, the children, the underclass, anyone who could be cast as unprotected from the 'evil' powers.' They have cast aside this cloak in this new world of proud immodesty.

Wm F Buckley in the late '80's wrote that the progressives were giving up on saving the proletariat because in the USSR and its satellites, the proletariat said, 'please we don't want you to save us - we'll do it ourselves.'

He went on to suggest that the environmental movement would be the progressives' next canard, Trojan Horse, because trees can't say, 'I don't want your help!'

Ultimately we will never defeat the progressives; we can only hold them off for our time in this world. There will always be people who think they are entitled to what others have earned. And that is what progressives really think. They camouflage it with altruism, but it really is nothing other than uncontrolled self-interest.

Unfortunately for them and us, they have not learned the parasite's first rule, "Don't kill the host!"

Now we as the host have been roused and are taking positive steps to rid ourselves of these parasites. But all we can hope for is to get enough of them out of the way and out of power before they destroy our civilization.

Which is sadly in the progressives' best interests, too - but they do not see that.

Don't tread on me!!!

Petronius| 4.28.11 @ 10:13AM

Another waste of ink. Liberals operate on expectation and raw infantile emotion. And we're trying to reason with a 4th lost generation of them? Fuggettaboutit! There is no way they will ever be disabused of their sandbox mentality and PeterPantheism. Much as I hate to agree with a RINO like George Will, he's right ab out this one. "There will be no change for the better until these people are gone."

Dan Hirsch| 4.28.11 @ 10:23AM

My point is that they will always, always be with us! In this world, they are everpresent. They are eternal. They are like hunger - you can eat, but you'll be hungry again. George Will might as well wish that the sun rise in the West and set in the South!

Every single day you have to eat and every single day you have to battle progressives.
This is life with humans. Get used to it!

E pluribus unum!

Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.| 4.28.11 @ 1:13PM

" Liberals operate on expectation and raw infantile emotion." Gee, I was about to say that about conservatives.

Al Adab| 4.28.11 @ 1:37PM

Can we not assume that a person with an Ed. D. has read Locke, Adam Smith and Burke? As you note elsewhere, classical Liberalism is the value system to which modern American Conservatism adheres. Do you suggest that those views are no longer valid?

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 3:07PM

Liberals operate on "AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS" - Conservatives do not.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 11:15AM

BillboTex,

Some would argue just the opposite. That the wealth of corporate CEOs or tax breaks for the rich, are "AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS", i.e. the middle and lower classes.

Peace and love to you BillboTex,
-Lagius

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.28.11 @ 11:28AM

HEY FOLKS! DID YOUALL CATCH THIS PIECE OF ARROGANT CRAP FROM OUR LOCAL "LIBERAL BRAIN TRUST"?

RCV| 4.28.11 @ 1:02AM
The only problem with your theory, Petronius, is that the majority of the most competitive, productive people -- the innovators, those who led and created the technological revolution in America, the best educated and the job creators of the new economy -- are "his voters". The strength of the tea party, in contrast, is in those economically depressed red states where the education level is low, and where people believe the birthism and other right wing nonsense people like you feed them."

Folks...
This idiot can't even screw in a lightbulb! He depends on so many people to allow his life to exist, and calls THEM dumb?
Well,
we shall see shortly. RCV, I suggest you buy three books.
First, buy "The Way Things Work" ( I & II)
Then buy:
www.americaalonesaidno.com

With that knowledge...you might...MIGHT...survive the coming upheaval.
(or croak)

Tim the Enchanter| 4.28.11 @ 12:08PM

Ken... I can guess from what location RCV pulled that nonsense from. He obviously doesn't have a clue as to what the acronym "TEA" stands for. The TEA party people ARE the productive element in our country, those who PAY TAXES and feel that they pay more than enough. Productive people pay taxes, parasites live off them. The productive element in this society are not Obama's constituency. Productive people don't need him, or his ilk.

One of these days I may buy your book.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.28.11 @ 1:14PM

Hey, Tim.
My book is like three of the best action movies you have ever seen... except right now and real.

Rancorous Calumny Vituperation| 4.28.11 @ 2:25PM

I don't bother with a silly specific statement made 4.28.11 @ 1:02AM in the comments section of the article posted here at AmSpec on Wednesday 4.27.11 titled "What Professor Obama Doesn't Understand" by Peter Ferrara at 6:08AM on many many many more even sillier statements made throughout AmSpec matters.

trinacria| 4.28.11 @ 2:52PM

How are the 'shrooms, bro?

Rancorous Calumny Vituperation| 4.28.11 @ 3:41PM

RCV | 12.10.10 @ 7:06PM

"I don't sign silly petitions on science matters"

I don't bother with silly petitions like the one at petitionproject.org where thirty one thousand four hundred eighty seven actual scientists provide their names and qualifications that utterly destroy the manmade global warming prattle even though as I don't bother with the silly petition continue to espouse all the myriad scientific evidence in support of manmade global warming even though as I don't bother with silly petitions like the petitionproject.org petition that only scientists have signed boast I don't sign such silliness even after being informed geniuses like me can't sign the petition only actual scientists sign it as in the thirty one thousand four hundred eighty seven who in fact did but I emphatically really emphatically don't bother with silly petitions on science matters so don't bother anymore that you didn't understand what an unintelligent dishonest asswipe of a commentator I really emphatically really am now I leave you as I sanctimoniously yet again don't bother with silly petitions on science matters and at least I belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born but that's just another matter matters.

Petronius| 4.28.11 @ 1:18PM

Thanks Tex
If the plutocrats believe that liberalism is great because they can afford it and enjoy the privilege of laughing at us because we can't, then let the crash come. Then we will see who can survive.

RCV| 4.28.11 @ 7:10PM

Thanks for the tips, Ken. Always appreciated! I am a great fan of David MacCaulay and love his books, including The Way Things Work.

You're the man, Ken, who calls people names, not me. I come from a family of working people and have great respect for the value of all work and the people who do it.

We will all survive, and quite well, thank you. Sit back, take a deep breath, relax, and thank our God you are blessed enough to have been born -- like our President -- in the greatest country and time in history.

Rancorous Calumny Vituperation| 4.28.11 @ 8:17PM

RCV | 10.23.10 @ 9:30PM

"I abhor sanctimonious conservatism of the tea party brand, an ideology wholly lacking in intelligence or a shred of real Christian love and compassion. It espouses policies dangerous, damaging, and detrimental to our country and it's future. It will have a lifespan much like its intellectual forebearer, Know-Nothingism."

Maddox| 4.28.11 @ 11:50AM

Liberalism may be dying but liberals are taking the country down with them. Victory over that disease is not so sweet in the wake of its destruction.

Who Knows?| 4.28.11 @ 12:33PM

Picture Henry Waxman, say, repeating, “So what?”, and you have the liberal’s answer to ANY debatable point.

Or, “You just don’t get it!” will do.

And, from their powerful point of view, I can see how “right” they are.

Stupid is as stupid does, and it sure looks to me like we have the stupid leading the stupid, and those who aren’t QUITE so stupid, called conservatives and libertarians, have helped earn the sobriquet, “Stupid Party”, for the GOP.

Don’t be stupid---buy gold, and only pay minimal attention ton the STUPID debate.

JeffT| 4.28.11 @ 12:37PM

Liberalism is simply name-calling. They don't want to debate, Obama has said so. They want to dictate. And Obama is leading the charge in that direction. Just listen to some of the Hispanic congressmen and you'll cringe when they talk about Obama just going over the law to do what he wants. The influence of Hispanics, with their heritage of non-democratic government, is seeping into our Congress. It will not be too many years until we resemble some Banana Republic with a legitimate dictator. It can happen here. The Constitution has been spat upon for so many years, by both parties, that it will soon be a relic of ancient history.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 1:25PM

Jeff T,

You mention, "The influence of Hispanics, with their heritage of non-democratic government"...would you like to provide some examples of their "heritage of non-democratic government"?

Peace and love to you Jeff T,
-Lagius

jo blo| 4.28.11 @ 2:03PM

Let's see...

Chavez in Venezuela. Peron in Argentina. The combined Oligarchy-Kleptocracy in Mexico. El Salvador and the Sandinistas. Emerging socialism in Peru and Bolivia. Cuba and Castro, for God's sakes. Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. That's just off the top of my head.

The only three countries I can think of right now in Latin America that are not socialist or communist are Chile, Honduras and Colombia. And of those three, the only one I'd even consider living in is Chile.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 7:50PM

jo blo,

I can see you'd like to answer for Jeff T, so I'll let you humor me.

So you think that because SOME latin american countries are deemed to be un-democratic, that this means that the Hispanics have a "heritage of non-democratic government"...hmm...ok.
Let's look at Venezuela. It actually has two main political blocs at the moment, the USPV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) which is a DEMOCRATIC socialist political party -- and then there is the Mesa de la Unidad Democratica (coalition for democratic unity). Despite what you may have heard, the people of Venezuela VOTED for Chavez and his supporters, and have continued to elect them, democratically.
Let's look at Peron in Argentina. If you've read anything about Argentina, you'd see that they employ a "federal representative democratic republic", with powers separated into an executive, legislative, and judicial branch just as we do. So that is actual democratic as well.
Let's look at Mexico. The "United Mexican States" are actually a federation where their government is representative, democratic, and also republican based on a presidential system (according to their 1917 Constitution). Let's look at El Salvador. It also is a presidential, representative, democratic republic. So once again they employ a form of democracy as well. As for the Sandinistas, they actually fought for popular participation and mobilization as it was written in Article 2 of the Nicaraguan constitution. Nicaragua too employs democratic principles. How about Peru? It also, much like Mexico and El Salvador is a presidential representative democratic republic, where in fact, the Peruvian government is directly elected. Let's move on to Bolivia (your list is dwindling)....Bolivia is a democratic republic...hmm...since when are democratic governments considered "un-democratic"? Bolivia has, in fact, been governed by democratically elected governments since 1982. As for Cuba, it IS run by a communist government -- however Municipal elections were restored back in 1992, so there is some level of democracy where citizens have the right to vote for their representatives. In Cuba, since there are direct elections to municipal, provincial and national assemblies -- the citizens do play a direct democratic role. The Dominican Republic is a representative democracy, where the presidents are directly elected for 4 year terms, and the legislative representatives are elected by the people every two years. Well that pretty much sums it up. Every country is either a representative democracy, Socialist democracy, democratic republic, or in the case of Cuba (under communism) still allows democratic (direct) elections/participation by the citizens.

On a side note, even if all these nations were completely "un-democratic", would that mean that all Hispanics living in the U.S. are somehow defined by those countries governments? Are your ideologies defined by where you were born, or where your ancestors came from? I don't know about you, but I choose to think for myself-- rather than be defined by some "generalized ideology" based on my ethnicity.

Peace and love to you jo blo,
-Lagius

Todd S| 4.28.11 @ 11:14PM

Talk about diarrhea of the mouth. Well we know exactly where you are coming from now when you claim that Venezuela and Bolivia are "democratic republics", kind of like how North Korea is the "people's republic". The truth is there is no freedom to make a living there and you live at the dictates of dictators and lucky to have enough food to eat to survive, the joys of socialism following the footsteps of Comrade Castro. You think you are intelligent but in reality you are an ignorant clown.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 5:21PM

Todd S,

The point is all of those nations have at least some elements of democracy. Some citizens that live there would say that a few of those nations have a higher level of democracy than in the U.S. You claim that "there is no freedom to make a living there and you live at the dictates of dictators...", etc. In reality, many citizens in these nations are electing the representatives and presidents (not dictators as you claim) in to office, again and again. They have the ability to involve community organizations in their legislation, again representing the people and their interests. Unfortunately you believe everything you hear in western media (the same media owned by corporations that benefit to have us believe all these other nations are "commie"). We have the media talking about how these "dictators" are causing all this strife, when in reality many of them are trying to nationalize the resources for the people rather than sell them to the U.S. This has created the "need" to misrepresent a lot of these nations with McCarthyism tactics. It's just like the whole United Fruit situation, over and over again. A situation where U.S. appointed economic hit men will denigrate these nations if they don't comply with U.S demands for resources (or hire CIA appointed assassinations of those representatives). People think that "true" democracies need to be like the U.S. (which was actually ranked as 17th place in the democracy index worldwide). If everyone lived like those in the U.S., we'd run out of resources in about 50 years. We have a nation with a "representative democracy" where the politicians are owned by corporations, and the corporations own everything else -- like the media (our "credible" source of "what's going on in the world"). Some could argue that we are far from a true democracy. So tell me another one...

Peace and love to you Todd S,
-Lagius

gerald skey| 4.28.11 @ 12:59PM

I agree that civil discourse is all but dead. But I am not at a point of blaming only Democrats. I have seen any number of phony articles dummied up to look real that are embarassments to Republians. Just yesterday, someone wrote me one of those "Send to all Americans - Obama spending our money to pay for Immigration to the US of Gazz residents". The article cited H1833 which seemed to be a Presidential order directing more than $20,000,000 to assist Gaza residents immigrate to the US. IN fact, H1833 was a humanitarian contribution to civilians in Gaza who had suffered extreme loss through Israeli attacks which Israel had undertaken in retaliation against Hamas rockets/mortars. It had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. There have been many other so-alled articles misleading and intentionally so. I am a Republican and something of a Conservative, but my comments on much of what the Conservatives put out there as the truth are, in fact, lies. Unless the Republican party finds a leader and begins to treat Democrats with respect, we are going to miss a golden opportunity and we will only have ourselves to blame.

DL| 4.28.11 @ 1:41PM

Mr. Skey, as a liberal who does his best to see, respect and discuss the points of view of others, I thank you for your comment and would be happy have a talk with you any day. My best to you.

Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.| 4.28.11 @ 1:08PM

You will probably disregard my comments. At any rate, you don't seem to have the slightest idea about what "liberal" means. Frankly, what killed the term liberal, as it has been used in recent history, were Republicans and conservatives who tried to make it a dirty word. What you refer to as liberals are really progressives. Liberals were dead at the end of the 18th Century. They were those who were convinced that one could change another's viewpoint by presenting them with the facts. What we on the left have learned is that presenting a conservative with facts is like pushing a rope, witness the large percentage of Republicans who still think Obama is a Muslim who was born outside the United States.

Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws and gun nuts will have guns."

Drunken Sailor| 4.28.11 @ 2:51PM

Yes, we conservatives have some on the fringe Dr. Smith. Are you honestly claiming the left does not? As for ther term liberal, conservatives have not killed it, it was hijacked by progressives as they knew to be openly called a progressive would kill their political chances. Most conservative like facts, even the unpleasant ones. But to piss on my head and tell me it is raining does not make it a fact. I could easily say that to get Liberals to agree they have a fact wrong is like nailing jello to a tree. I believe Obama was born here and is a christian, however he only has himself to blame for people thinking otherwise by his actions. Liberals believe that if you say something it must be true because they said it. Conservatives believe you may say something but your actions speak louder.

Wayne | 4.28.11 @ 2:58PM

I am a old time liberal, who no is a libertarian. A liberal was anti-establishment and pro individual liberty. We talked about the raising of consciousness, thus respecting the individual and his choices. Todays "liberal" is closer to what we use to consider a Marxist. They are very much Pro-establisment (Big Government) and don't hardly believe in individual liberty at all. Instead they favor elite telling the worker bees how to live. They have no scrupples.

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 3:15PM

"Dr." Smith, check out the statistics - criminals commit murder and break the law, and citizens without felony arrest convictions protect them selves against criminals.

This is life as it should be, and hopefully we can prevent liberals from changing that?

William Hoy| 4.28.11 @ 1:14PM

I doubt that tea partiers have pushed liberalism into remission.

Pat| 4.28.11 @ 1:35PM

Whoa there, R. Emmett, just hold on here (your first name is R.?) – there is no conceivable reason to announce the pending demise of Liberalism. In fact, R., you sound like an 8 year old boasting to his friends on the school playground that “my Dad can beat up anyone in the whole wide world”. Liberals deserve our respect; they’re smart and tough and not so easily defeated by overconfident Conservative warriors. Remember this R., Paul Krugman is paid much more than you are, reaches far more readers than you do and managed to trick you into mentioning his name within your TAS essay thereby peaking the curiosity of potential new readers. How many times has Paul mentioned your name within his columns, R. Emmett? Well duh, that’s right – do you see it now?

And let’s review the system’s basic rules. 2 Liberal voters always outvote 1 Conservative voter – and that means the Conservative guy or gal must then do what the Liberals say. OK, so far? Now slightly over 2 years ago, Obama was the “Dearly Beloved” of the American voters, everyone said so at the time, do you remember? But now his presidential approval rating is falling off according to the pollsters, so Conservative pundits are growing very bold. But isn’t it true these same folks who disapprove of him today were the ones who loved him only 2 short years ago? And you’re counting on these very same folks to renounce Liberalism – those gullible, naïve former Obama voters? Did you think 2012 will bring a completely fresh crop of new voters and not these once and future Obama lovers? And you’re counting on their discerning judgment to prevail next election?

Speaking of next election, Obama is actually in good shape. He still has the minorities. Do you think Obama won’t carry Detroit or Chicago or L. A. in 2012? And the Hispanic voters only wish their ancestors in this country had been oppressed so they too can cash in on the Federal guilt payments. The Talmud contains a little known rule stating the Righteous Man must always vote Liberal, so Obama has the Jews in his pocket as well. The Asians, with their high IQ’s, are sitting on the fence as usual waiting to see which way the political wind blows. Now that leaves only the white folks to oppose him, the most divided and easily confused of all voting factions.

Plus, Obama has the entire union vote next election, not just the UAW but all the government employee unions. And he’s just finished spreading almost $1 trillion among his friends and political allies – do you think some of this money will find its way back home and into the Democrat’s campaign funds? And while Wall St. bankers are few in voting numbers, their gratitude, come next election, will be shown in some astonishing ways. So, let’s do the simple math here and not let our emotions paint a false picture of reality. Let us not be like those brave pony soldiers at the Little Big Horn who patiently listened to General Custer when he said: “Men, there is nothing to worry about from these Indians, we have more far more firepower than they do and I know we’ve got them on the run”.

Mimi| 4.28.11 @ 3:23PM

Think....FOOD...GAS...FOOD GAS....Hello ?
Think....LIES..LIES...BS and more BS..Hello ?
Think.....TRUTH...The country NEEDS A LEADER.....Get it?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.28.11 @ 5:44PM

Pat,
sorry, we just can't fix stupid here. We CAN decide to cut off your allowance though.

skip| 4.28.11 @ 6:22PM

Thanks Pat for even more proof positive liberals are only relevant because they lie, cheat, and steal, and that these liars, cheats, and thieves are divorced from intelligence, honesty, the constitution, and Christianity. You've been a big help.

ABNCP| 4.28.11 @ 1:40PM

Roger Scruton a world class philospher has coined a word, "Oikophobic". He initialy used the word to describe the repudiation of inheritance and home. Then fined tuned to mean, "the loathing of the people, history, customs and morals of ones own native land". I cannot find a better and truer description of the Krugmans, Kliens, Pelosis and Reids just to start the list. Since the liberal press and politicians like to describe conservatives as, homophobic, racists etc. around I believe we should start calling them "Oidophobics". Sounds good to me.

Harry the Horrible| 4.28.11 @ 1:42PM

Are you SURE Mr. Tyrell? Liberalism looks awfully health to me.
IMHO, they might not be able to respond logically and rationally to conservative arguments, but they also think they don't need to do so.
And they might be right. Fifty percent of the people play less than 3% of the taxes. The corporate types are cozying up for "crony capitalism." There are lot of people out there, maybe a majority of the electorate, who believe that everybody is "entitled" to food, shelter, education, and medical care, regardless of who has to pay for them.
That sounds like a winning hand no matter how irrational their responses are to conservatism.
Remember, voters are not necessarily rational.

Margie| 4.28.11 @ 1:43PM

Speaking of evil.

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia."

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. The Sirens of Titan.

TEA Party.
Organized like an angelic Mafia!
Ah yes, be as innocent as doves, but wise like serpents!. (Mt. 10:16.

alice moore| 4.28.11 @ 5:12PM

Remember the Star Trek episode where Dr. McCoy said that "Good can triumph over evil, but, Good has to be very Careful"?

john| 4.28.11 @ 1:47PM

Paul Ryan's budget is 10 cents off a trip to the moon...

Don't support either socialist party in Amerika!

LibertyAtStake | 4.28.11 @ 1:57PM

"Raise a toast to free speech"

And to the defeat of the Kultursmog by the allied forces of Fox, AM Radio, the Internet, and veteran warriors such as yourself Mr. Tyrell.

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

Albert| 4.28.11 @ 2:22PM

Liberalism may truly be dead, but it still wins elections. Witness: The US Senate.

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 3:20PM

Albert, libs lost in the House LAST YEAR, and will lose in the Senate NEXT YEAR.

Still feeling comfortabilly and liberal?

Albert| 4.28.11 @ 4:16PM

I am not a "liberal." I was not boasting, I was LAMENTING the US Senate. Sorry if I was not clear.

Mimi| 4.28.11 @ 3:25PM

The RHINO'S gave away the SENATE!!

Wayne | 4.28.11 @ 2:53PM

I think that liberals are automatons. They just turn off their brains and spout off talking points. Contradictions do not matter. Hypocrazy does not matter. Logic does not matter. Facts do not matter. Hence they quickly resort to name calling, throwing out labels meant as an insult (like Birther or Teabagger) and then insist on telling everyone else what to do and how to live.

Strider| 4.28.11 @ 10:47PM

Automatons? How about Borg drones? Their favorite word is "irrelevant." Substitute that word for "do/does not matter" in your post and you've got the progs nailed.

John Mountfort| 4.28.11 @ 3:09PM

Speaking as a conservative, I find the tendency of many who call themselves by the same label to liberally and almost exclusively engage in spin and outright fabrication distressing, to say the least [Honestly! Celebrating Fox News as an expression of free speech. Yes, free; and certainly also ugly, mean-spirited, and dumb]. Of all the things that modern liberalism has on its conscience, destruction of political discourse is certainly not one of them. It is people who real conservatives apparently don't have the guts to call out as the demagogues and radicals that they really are who have destroyed our discourse. If it happened to begin on campuses in the 1960s, with one set of radicals, so be it: it is radicals calling themselves conservatives who have run with it, making our discourse routinely stupid, intemperate, and blowhard-ridden.

I have not yet heard that "conservative" is a synonym for blind lack of self awareness or deafness to the sound of fact. It was supposed to have been otherwise: a bulwark against ideology, not ideology's Trojan Horse. We have a responsibility to keep our house in order, and we have not done it.

Thom| 4.28.11 @ 3:12PM

I guess when the apparent winner of academic debates has practical impact on politics in this nation the value of what is put forward here will gain in value to the common man. Until that day way off in the future arrives, what intellectuals argue about or not has zero relevance to what a MOB considers important. The Marxist Express, starting out early in the last century didn’t get to the point of destroying this Republic by winning intellectual arguments with the mass of voters that see nothing morally wrong with living off the fruits of others and feeling entitled to “other people’s money”. Since much of this is codified into our laws and practices at this point what the hell do those that benefit from this or support this have to concern themselves with debates about the merits of such policies? They’ve got the money….. and the law on their side.

This kind of academic exercise is like reasoning with a rattlesnake in order to get it to move out of your path. It never works and neither have the Marxist polices in play here. You want a rattlesnake to get out of your way you either find something to kill it with or physically move it at risk to yourself. Same for Marxists….

Please stop with all the proclamations about “liberalism” being dead. Liberalism was still born as a morally bankrupt light Communist movement argument but that didn’t stop it from gaining control of most of government, the Press, Academia and enslaving tens of millions of people in this country that can’t take a dump without government supplied instructions and paper. It won’t be an intellectual argument that matters at the polls in 2012, 2014, 2016…… and elections themselves may become moot in a few short years too……

Abdula Salaam| 4.28.11 @ 3:21PM

Mr.Ryan will not even be re-elected.Seniors as well as people in their 40's do want fiscal restraint,but not the kind Mr. Ryan prescribes.We were actually more thinking to close the Congressional steam room and taking Kobe Beef of of the Congressional cafeteria menu.We were also more thinking that the voucher program should be for Big Oil,Big Agri,and Big Military.
By the way,if you throw seniors under the bus,what are you defending militarily?

Albert| 4.28.11 @ 3:22PM

If liberalism is dead or dying, then Democrats need to up the ante. Here's an idea for them! Since it is true that about half of American adults pay no Federal income tax, let's expand that concept. Start a Federal SALES tax, set it at 15% and exempt anyone who pays no Federal income tax. Such people could qualify for Federal ID cards that identify them as exempt from paying the newly created Federal Sales tax! Millions would qualify, while the rest of us pay more of our "fair share!" Millions of votes to be purchased by Democrats! Billions of dollars to be raised by increasing the tax burden on already overburdened working stiffs! Imagine watching the returns on the next election night! This could keep the Democrats in power right up to the end of civilization! (which would probably be about 2 years down the road following this.) Come on Democrats! No time for half hearted measures. This is your chance!!!

Benson II| 4.28.11 @ 3:52PM

Is Mr. Tyrrell correct when he says liberalism is dead. If this is dead than it isn't dead enough. Just like the Zombies that seem impossible to kill liberalism keeps raising it's ugly head. When the Democrat party, our schools, our Universities, and the media expunge from it's ranks the liberal, progressive, commie loving members only then will I say liberalism is dead.

Padoux| 4.28.11 @ 5:27PM

Amen, I am 65 and for so many of those years I was infuriated by the mainstream media as I knew I wasn't getting the whole story. Now with Fox, the internet, and talk radio conservatives now have a voice. The left is squealing like a stuck pig because it has lost its' monopoly on the news. Live with it! In the past conservatives on TV and the media in general were scarce as hen's teeth, no longer.

amsron| 4.28.11 @ 6:15PM

Fie to your premise.

I just spent 8 days in the heart of conservative America. The only political comment I heard was, "I couldn't vote for no Niggar in the White House." Quote, Unquote." That same person didn't know that her state senator was the infamous Tom Coburn, but she "voted almost a straight Republican ticket." Again I'm quoting.

The only thing holding the Republican party together these days seems to be racism, the racism promoted by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the American Spectator. There I said it. These are the 'sophisticated' right wing nags that could make an Alaskan buy ice.

Some day , the American people will wake up to find that they've betrayed themselves and their progeny...but if history has taught us one thing? It is that the pendulum swings both ways.

SueDinNY| 4.30.11 @ 3:34PM

All I can say is, "lies, lies, lies." The "heart" of conservative America? Where might that be? If your only defense is white people are racist, because you met one person who happened to be racist, you're going to lose. Let me just say as a New Yorker I have been called racist names because I am white. Since I was a kid in fact: school, walking on the street, dealing with customers. I did NOTHING to them. It was racist aggression. The pendulum swings both ways. Do I hate the race of people who called me names? No. It's the person who's screwed up. It's time that the African American spoke people (who are not the only black people in America but who constantly bring it up over and over and over) get over it.

Ground Control| 4.28.11 @ 8:02PM

"The only thing holding the Republican party together these days seems to be racism, the racism promoted by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the American Spectator. There I said it. These are the 'sophisticated' right wing nags that could make an Alaskan buy ice."

These statements are patently false, slanderous, and ungrammatical. And I doubt the veracity of your claim to have heard the "political comment." You are the only source and your prejudices are evident. The racist here is you as you vainly attempt to use accusations of racism as a political weapon. It won't work.

skip| 4.28.11 @ 8:24PM

amsron provided prattle based on emotion.

Ground Control provided reason and experience based on logic.

Go figure.

SueDinNY| 4.30.11 @ 3:36PM

You obviously don't listen to them but are just spewing back your left-wing progressive propaganda.

sans| 4.28.11 @ 8:23PM

Whatever you right wing yahoos say, I know it is happening to you. You give yourselves away all the time - you just deflect what you are experiencing. And I know it is you that are going through your death throes - and a well deserved death it is.

cave canem| 4.28.11 @ 8:46PM

Liberalism isn't dead, alas, it's incredibly lazy.

Diane1976| 4.28.11 @ 9:16PM

When Ryan came up with his budget plan the President challenged him on his IDEAS in a forum appropriate for a President to choose.

He didn't attack him on his patriotism, his religion or where he was born.

Is that why Ryan was "astonished"?

marshcope| 4.29.11 @ 1:02AM

Having come of age in the 60s I still have some hidden liberal opinions that emerge at times (no one who came through that era could have emerged uninfluenced by it), but I do now have a special thing against the Colmesians--liberals who mouth views that sound as if they came from a check list from the Book of Liberal; "these are views I Must hold because I Am a Liberal, even if I have never really given any thought to what I am saying, or if I really believe them."

Dee See| 4.30.11 @ 12:08AM

---FALSE PARADIGM ALERT---

Globalism via the FED and
capstones, unaccountable occult
societies, the RED China
economic TREASON op, stealth dissolution
of sovereignty, and, as ever, VAST, covert
EUGENICS ----is the set-up.

ALLL else is ---DIS----traction.

DON'T be lulled.

DON'T be deceived.

IT IS the 11th hour.

SueDinNY| 4.30.11 @ 3:22PM

I wish liberalism was dead - it's not. We still have higher debt, more spending. We have a majority of Dems in the Senate. I agree - they do not engage in debate besides name calling. It's because they can't logically defend their actions. Nancy said it all, "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it." That's the defense. You're little dumb subjects - you don't know what's good for you. Just pony up your money and shut up. Now - the Republicans are no better. Bush expanded gov't immensely - Education, Homeland Security, Medicare Part B. The Republican Presidential candidates are all Progressive RINOS. Even Ryan voted for tarp and bailing out GMC. If you want dead, I'd say it's the Republican party which has become Democrat "light". Very troubling indeed.

RCV| 4.30.11 @ 6:13PM

For anyone who's been around for more than a half century, it's always amusing to read these "Liberalism/Conservatism is Dead" articles. After Goldwater's smashing defeat in 1964, the press was awash with "Conservatism/The Rublican Party is Dead" pronouncements. Four years later, Nixon triumphed over the happy liberal warrior, Hubert Humphrey, and we were told of the "new Republican colation" which had put to death traditional liberalism ... at least until Jimmy Carter was elected. The with Ronald Reagan's ascent to power, we were told that conservatism was eternally triumphant over moribund liberalism ..... until Clinton's election. The Gingrich's conservative sweep in 94, followed by Clinton's reelection, followed by GWB. When Obama and the Democrats were swept into office in 2008, the last rites were given to the Republican Party ... until two years later, when it won the midterms. Now, we are again told that "Liberalism is Dead" and "The Paradigm Has Shifted".

More like the regular swing of the American pendullum that keeps our country down the stable middle in the long run.

marshcope| 5.1.11 @ 12:15AM

Re the infamous comment by Pelosi about Passing the bill and then Reading it I would add as infamous the rant by Max Baucus to a lady at a town meeting that she was stupid for not knowing that bills are written by a congression agency of professional bill writers. I doubt that Katie, Brian, and Diane really know the inner workings of bill text writing in DC. Yes, I know that the text of the Constitution was written by Gouvernor Morris.

Dee See| 5.1.11 @ 12:27AM

"Remember, 'Free Trade', Globalism and
EUGENICS (and of course TREASON) are
always intertwined. Always. Always..."
-ALAN WATT
(devastating and essential online coverage)

---EUGENICS apologists and TREASON
promoters, with Left field cover.

Nothing more, nothing less.

HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012 -----yessirrreee!

Theo Prinse| 5.2.11 @ 10:44AM

off topic

Osama Bin Laden killed ? I don't believe one thiny little word of it !The Pakistani ISI confirmed .. and they should know. They are the founder of the Taliban. But the Taliban denies the death. Contradiction ! Hamas is a taqyyia movement and only for september calling palestinian state working together with their enemy Fatah. Hamas "mournes" over alledged killing of Osama Bin Laden.
OBL has been dead (accidentally) for years and the tapes after his death were false.
Leaving Afghanistan because McCrystall or anyone else can't succeed David Petraeus as commander because he is succeeding Leon Panetta because Panetta is succeeding Robert M Gates because Gates is 67 and Leon is 73 is all bullshit !

Pollynkorect| 5.4.11 @ 9:03PM

Just because Liberalism is wrong doesn't mean it is dead. Liberalism is the inevitable end result of Democracy that the Founders of the defunct American Republic warned us against. Liberalism doesn't have to answer its critics anymore because its proponents are kept in power by the votes of the fearful, greedy leeches whose perceived welfare depends upon the redistribution of wealth. The only thing that will ever dethrone Liberalism is when the United States government is bankrupt and there is no more borrowed money available to buy votes from the short-sighted, greedy majority. America will never voluntarily surrender the goodies Liberalism has delivered: "Free" public education; Medicare & Medicaid; public libraries; Interstate highways; subsidized housing; Agricultural subsidies - the list is almost endless. Never mind that the price for these "freebies" is the surrender of human and constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, property rights, privacy, freedom of thought and even the right to transmit our values and religion to our children. America has consistently demonstrated over the past century that is will gladly surrender its birth right of freedom and independence in exchange for a pot of porridge.

Atokaite| 5.12.11 @ 10:11AM

Excellent, but entirely wrong article.
Liberalism, while they will not engage, debate or even sound reasonable, is not dead.
A cursory review of the past 60 years shows ups and downd, but never a demise. Liberal thought is always easily transferred to a new generation. That is what is occurring in the Schools today. The current Czars are old, wornout, passe' but the ideology never dies. As long as there are folks willing and eager to buy into the Obama Style Kool Aid, we will have conflict.
end
Semper FI

Matt| 5.16.11 @ 7:50PM

I would just say, what's the point in engaging serious conservatives in discussion? They have no place in our current gov't. Serious conservatives were voted out en masse in favor of reactionary Tea Party candidates. Rational minds did not prevail, and now Boehner suddenly looks like a centrist, constantly fighting his own party just to get something done.

Daezy | 5.17.11 @ 10:21PM

Here, here!

Richard S'Chevalier| 5.26.11 @ 4:09PM

Tyrrell, Jr., articles are a wonderful breath of fresh air, and much needed. The liberals spin the same old stories and sings the same song that the Republic is a vacuum and dying horse, when in reality it is the liberals already stinking, dead and needing to be buried . May G-d bless our Republic.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 9:41PM

is good

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|61 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|69 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|26 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|23 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|10 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Current Crisis

Liberalism’s Death Croak

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (197) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 6:29AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.28.11 @ 8:08AM

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 2:49PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 3:48PM

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 7:58PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 8:08PM

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 10:40PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.29.11 @ 5:59AM

IzeHavitt| 4.28.11 @ 4:41PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 5:04PM

idalily| 4.28.11 @ 8:01PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 8:21PM

dale emde| 4.28.11 @ 7:24PM

answer4everything| 4.28.11 @ 9:01PM

doolittle| 4.29.11 @ 12:12AM

Darin| 4.28.11 @ 7:07AM

Jeremiah| 4.28.11 @ 2:15PM

ggoblue| 4.28.11 @ 7:08AM

LarryK| 4.28.11 @ 9:32AM

Tim the Enchanter| 4.28.11 @ 11:53AM

talkradio55| 4.28.11 @ 1:49PM

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.28.11 @ 7:49AM

Conservative View| 4.28.11 @ 8:09AM

irish19| 4.28.11 @ 9:29AM

daboss| 4.28.11 @ 9:47AM

SpiralArchitect| 4.28.11 @ 2:48PM

Strider| 4.28.11 @ 10:17PM

mames| 4.28.11 @ 9:57AM

Teaghan| 4.28.11 @ 11:20AM

JungleCogs| 4.28.11 @ 1:54PM

Sid Vicious| 4.28.11 @ 4:44PM

Bob K.| 4.28.11 @ 2:48PM

coal carrier| 4.28.11 @ 8:06AM

JimmyMac| 4.28.11 @ 8:21AM

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 9:00AM

DL| 4.28.11 @ 1:15PM

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 4.28.11 @ 8:26AM

JohnMc| 4.28.11 @ 8:28AM

93|\/|etro| 4.28.11 @ 7:02PM

Hillel| 4.28.11 @ 8:38AM

D. Singh| 4.28.11 @ 8:38AM

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 4.28.11 @ 8:50AM

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 9:14AM

Markopolis| 4.28.11 @ 10:39AM

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 11:18AM

Al Adab| 4.28.11 @ 1:09PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 10:28AM

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 2:42PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 12:50PM

Al Adab| 4.28.11 @ 1:11PM

Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.| 4.28.11 @ 1:19PM

Al Adab| 4.28.11 @ 1:29PM

Gary R. Smith, Ed.D.| 12.6.11 @ 11:40PM

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 2:56PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 9:01AM

skip| 4.28.11 @ 1:40PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 10:06PM

skip| 4.28.11 @ 10:37PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 8:54AM

skip| 4.29.11 @ 11:12AM

skip| 4.29.11 @ 2:53PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.30.11 @ 12:42PM

skip| 5.3.11 @ 3:30AM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.30.11 @ 9:03AM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.30.11 @ 9:06AM

skip| 5.5.11 @ 2:14PM

BillboTex| 4.28.11 @ 2:50PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 10:26PM

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 5:20PM

Deborah D | 4.28.11 @ 5:26PM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 10:36PM

Deborah D | 4.29.11 @ 9:14AM

Lagiusmeatius| 4.29.11 @ 10:35AM

Deborah D | 5.2.11 @ 1:11PM

Le Cracquere| 4.28.11 @ 9:19AM