Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

Recommended Photo Store
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading? Click here to find out.
 
Make your Amazon purchases though this banner to support our blog:
(If you don't see the banner click here for our Amazon store.)
 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Quote of the Day

    Posted by Jonathan on April 7th, 2014 (All posts by )

    Seth Mandel: Brendan Eich, the Culture Wars, and the Ground Shifting Beneath Our Feet in Commentary:

    But forget about the Kochs for a moment. Forget, too, about the left’s major donors like Tom Steyer, who plans to spend $100 million in congressional midterm elections in support of Democrats. What about the guy who donated $1,000 to a state ballot initiative six years ago? Should he lose his job somewhere down the line because public opinion has shifted against an old ballot initiative? To the left, the answer is: Absolutely.
     
    This is part of why conservatives have been leery about the Democrats’ proposals to force disclosure of the kind of donors who give to Republicans (while exempting many of their own major donors). The left claims it wants full disclosure of political participation in the name of transparency and electoral integrity. We now know this isn’t remotely true. They want disclosure so they can extend the purge of heretics from private life and thus deter libertarian and conservative political participation. They want a permanent record of everyone’s political opinions to use against them at any time in the future. This is about disenfranchisement and blacklisting and nothing more. That should have been apparent before, but it’s crystal clear now.

     

    4 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

    1. tyouth Says:

      Stalin (or Stalinism) is the model: Don’t give a damn for any justice or morality as long as my group has power and the goodies that come with it.

    2. Grurray Says:

      Gay rights is a red herring. The real purpose of these laws is to solidify government control over our private lives.

      My preference would be that my marriage would never have to be sanctioned by the government. The only reason a gay couple would want theirs to be is to get the government to solve problems it created in the first place.

      If marriage was privatized, this would never be an issue.

      Or give them a tax break or set up some law services to pay for and work out the legal issues of benefits, child custody, power of attorney, etc.
      Extend it to straight couples too while your at it.
      Then to balance things out, give us some relief from the marriage penalty.
      Everybody wins.

      then let’s move on to the issues that actually really matter.

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Grurray,

      Never happen. If problems get solved there’s no more leverage for the control freaks and Stalinists, or opportunities for graft. Unresolved grievances, real or made up, are needed for the system to function.

    4. MikeK Says:

      As Instapundit would say, “Not enough opportunity for graft.”

      It is interesting, and if I were younger it would be frightening, how rapidly this society is moving toward a totalitarian one. This began in 1929 but really got started with Lyndon Johnson who had no concept of moderation as Roosevelt seemed to have. I’m reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s dual biography od Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, Bully Pulpit.

      Her Progressive sentiments are on full display and almost enough to make me put down the book. The history of Ida Tarbell and the other “muckrakers” is interesting enough to keep me going so far but I can’t guarantee that I can keep going if it gets worse. She obviously idolizes them and her Socialist leanings are obvious. I wonder if she will express and reservations later when we get to the “Wobblies?”