It is apparently a self-conceit of progressives/liberals that they are friendlier to notions of liberty than are conservatives. While Libertarians (who are concerned with matters of liberty) disagree with that, today in a comment this was offered:

Name a liberty or freedom other than “the freedom to not be taxed” or “the freedom to screw over others” and progressives support it. (Guns is the only possible exception, but I’d argue that progressives who oppose gun rights generally throw it into the “freedom to screw over others” category.)

Just this week, I was inquiring at my daughter’s middle school whether I could get her excused (for the year) from gym class. She spends 20+ hours a week outside of school training at gymnastics and doesn’t lack one bit for physical exercise. What she does lack is time for homework. I had a nice chat with the school principle who informed me that he would love to do that, but state laws prevent that. It seems that somebody decided that there is a problem with childhood obesity and to help with that they’ve put a stop-gap to anyway of getting dismissed from gym class. He told me that another parent of a gymnast has been trying for 2 years to find a loophole unsuccessfully. Just another example of progressive nanny-state legislation snip snip snipping your freedom away. 

From the wiki article on “nanny state”:

For example, politically conservative or libertarian groups in the United States (especially those that support the free market and capitalism) object to excessive state action to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options.

Liberals on the other hand have used the term to describe the state as being excessive in its protections of businesses and the business class —protections ostensibly made against the public good, and the good of consumers. This usage applies to the international context as well, where the “public good” is used to refer to people in general, and where the state is viewed as being excessive in its protection of native business over foreign (rival) businesses

[Emphasis mine]

I’d point out I have not ever seen the liberal usage noted above, however the point in question in the above is that liberals in fact (as viewed by non-liberals) continually push state actions which prevent people from the consequences of their own (voluntary) actions. This is a restriction of freedom which does not fit into the “not to be taxed” or “screw others” category. The sorts of actions which this includes are countless and continually pushed and have been pushed more and more over the years. Apparently progressives (like JA who offered the above comment orginally) are not even aware that these sorts of regulations and laws are a restriction on our freedom. 

If you ask a Libertarian about the differences between the right and left regarding liberty they (and bloggers Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz and Timothy Sandefur at Freespace) who are both self-professed libertarians assert that while conservatives fall short of liberals regarding freedom in two categories of liberty (sexual and procreative) in all the other matters the left either falls short  or is the same (e.g., religion) and in both of their estimation when these were weighed together all in all the right was either more favorable for liberty than the left. 

The “One Nation” rally of liberals vs. the “Restoring Honor” rally of conservatives.  What a study in contrasts.

Let’s start with the numbers.  Now, you may say that the numbers really aren’t that meaningful; what matters is the message.  Fair enough, except the number really mattered to the Left.  As pseudonymous writer “LaborUnionReport” notes from RedState:

You see, the size of the Saturday’s OneNation rally would not really matter if…

1. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz didn’t foolishly make the claim that he would have 300,000 people at Socialist Saturday;
2. Leninist labor boss Richard Trumka hadn’t predicted 100,000 union members;
3. The SEIU hadn’t claimed 75,000 of its purple progressives would be bused in (unless the SEIU really meant that 75k of its janitors would do park clean-up for all the SEIU signs that were left lying around), and;
4. Some dolt didn’t come on stage and claim that a satellite image proved that the Marxist March on Washington was bigger than Beck’s 8/28 rally…

Identical aerial views of the two rallies clearly show what one would call a gaping enthusiasm gap.  Keep those shots in mind when you read media articles that try to equivalence the two.  And consider, too, how many bought-and-paid-for attendees were there for “One Nation” (including students getting school credit for attending) and they still couldn’t hold a candle to the crowd from “Restoring Honor”, the vast majority that came on their own dime.  Nancy Pelosi once called the Tea Party “astroturf”, but clearly the plastic grass is on their side of the fence.

Oh, and another contrast is how you treat something you pay for vs something that’s provided for you.  You care more for something you paid for yourself, and thus there was quite a difference between how the “One Nation” attendees left the Washington Mall vs how the “Restoring Honor” attendees did.  When you pay for something yourself, you tend to take better care of it, which is a truism that can apply to government policies in general; a lesson the Left  never seems to learn.

And as Doug Ross notes, socialism played a big role in the rally.  Do these people even know the sordid history of socialism in the world?  That’s where this bunch wants to take us; further and further dependence on government and the power grab that is part and parcel of places like Venezuela.

This is their “America”?  What an awful place, and what a contrast between liberal and conservative.  I still do have hope.

To clarify,

A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence.

Meanwhile, President “Mexicans were here before America was an idea” Obama is trying to pitch the notion that there is no “us” and “them”, with regards to illegal immigration [sic].

Sorry, Mr. President, but we’re not buying this whole one-world idea and, just as a reminder, you swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America.

In this video, slam poet Chris Tse apologizes for being a Christian (warning: a couple of instances of foul language). Before you watch the video, think for a moment which actions Tse might have singled out as worthy of apologizing for. Consider our culture, its worldviews, and especially how Christians are portrayed in secular media.

How did you do? It really wasn’t that difficult to guess which sins he’d be apologizing for, was it?

As one would expect, some of the politically correct sins presented were: the crusades, homophobia, anti-abortion protests, culturally insensitive missionaries, etc. Now, regardless of whether or not Christians, in general, are guilty of some or all of these infractions, does anyone else find it unsettling that the infractions listed match up with how the Christian and Christianity is portrayed in secular media?

While it appears that Mr. Tse is sincere, albeit naive, I’m concerned about how this type of “apology” dovetails with the secular worldview of the liberal west. I find it interesting that we live in a world which considers all ideas valid, yet demands apologies from those whose ideas which, truth be told, they consider wrong (i.e., not valid). It’s the old, “We will not tolerate intolerance!” mantra. Recall that one of President Obama’s first actions, as President, was to travel ’round the world apologizing on behalf of the United States.

Apologizing, evidently, is in vogue.

I’ve read some commentators who state that we live in a post-modern society which is not really interested in viewing the world through rational, enlightenment eyes. Therefore, any discipline which presents an argument to make its case, such as that of apologetics, is considered old-school. Instead, we’re told, we need to expend our efforts to reach the heart of the person – namely by means of anything relational.

Hence, we see efforts such those to administer so-called social justice to the less fortunate in our midst – or – to deliver apologies for hurting other people’s feelings.

Yet we humans are neither wholly rational or wholly emotional creatures – we are much more than that. We have, after all, been stamped with the Image of God.

As such, worldviews which tout the truth of pluralism are self-defeating, not because they don’t feel right but because they don’t work. In the same vein, apologies for the past actions of a particular group had better have the facts and context of those actions objectively correct, lest such apologies be nothing more than a meaningless flapping of wind.

References: (which I don’t apologize for listing)

The Crusades – Rodney Stark – God’s Battalions

Abortion – Christians offering help and healing to those who’ve chosen abortion

Jim Elliot – ’nuff said

Focus on the Family (yes FOTF) – an article that must surely be filled with hate towards the homosexual…

Self Defense for a Bear Attack If it was me, I’d leave the summer squash for the crockpot, and utilize something that has the word “magnum” associated with it.

###

Geek News of the Week Images of Aurora on Saturn’s South Pole.

###

The S.L.E.D. Test as an argument against abortion Whenever I discuss the topic of abortion with a person who is pro-abortion, it’s amazing to see the lack of clarity and reason in their position. Truth be told, when unpacked to its core features, their position is without rational basis. Scott Klusendorf, formerly from Stand to Reason, discusses the S.L.E.D. Test, what it is, and how to rationally apply it to demonstrate that the unborn are valuable as human beings.

###

Funny

###

Obama think $1.00 will cover the purchase of 4 apples And, yes, the media didn’t handle it like they did when Dubya was around.

###

The 1% Solution? Bono’s One Foundation only manages to direct a little over 1% of what it receives to the needy? Ouch! Maybe the Obama administration should consider a takeover?

###

Power to the People! The last best hope…

Media Bias Dept.:  The Left got upset when Rupert Murdoch gave money to right-wing groups.  No mention, of course of the 88% of TV network donations go to Democrats.  And how much coverage did you hear about the BBC’s Director General admitting that the state-run news organization has had a “massive” left-wing bias?  Yeah, me neither.  Also, Patterico explains how the media has shaped the national discussion by selective coverage.

Market Watch:  The market is doing more for troubled homeowners than the government it.  CNN is, apparently, shocked to discover such a thing can happen.

“Recovery” Summer Dept.:  Germany’s recover has been fueled to a large extent by private sector consumption and growth, as opposed to the graph I posted earlier showing most of our jobs went to the government.  And irony of ironies, a French bureaucrat had to tell the US about cutting spending spurs growth.  Why can our own guys understand that?

ObamaCare Dept.:  After helping pass the health care bill, one Democratic Senator, using language he helped craft in the bill, is trying to use it to exempt his state from the individual mandate.  “Yeah, it’s a great idea … for everyone else but me.”  Also, reality is putting the lie to the promise that nothing was going to change for you if you like the health care you have.

Film Corner:  The trailer us up for “Blood Money”, an expose of the abortion industry.

Government (In)action Dept.:  The Justice Department is refusing to enforce voter fraud laws, and they’ve plainly said as much.  So one lawyer is using a provision of the law to file the lawsuits the Obama’s Justice won’t.  Our President respects the rule of law insofar as it furthers his own agenda.  No good can come of that.

Gossip Column:  Fidel Castro himself admits that the communist economic model doesn’t work.  It “works” only insofar as you get influxes of cash from, say, a beneficiary either internally (the “rich”) or externally (the USSR).  But on its own, it is an abject failure.  Would that the Left would hear this and stop trying to move us closer to it.

And finally, the last word on the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the burning of Korans, from Rick McKee.  (Click for a larger image.)

Executive Order No. 62 or… How to, at a moment’s notice, turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. In North Carolina, the governor signed the executive order, declaring a State of Emergency due to the approaching Hurricane Earl. While that may sound all well and good, when combined with North Carolina General Statute 14-288.7, things can become messy. The statute makes it unlawful for one to possess or transport off their own premises, a “dangerous weapon”, during a declared state of emergency. Hence, anyone engaged in lawful possession of a firearm off their premises (such as hunters or CCW permit holders), prior to a declared emergency, would automatically be breaking the law once an emergency is declared.

###

Korean shop owners had it figured out During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Korean shop owners were left on their own to defend themselves, with whatever means they had. Lucky for them they were armed as looters roamed the streets looking for booty. Not surprisingly, after experiencing shots fired from pistols and AR-15 rifles, looters left the Korean shop owners alone. Funny how that works.

###

Laser-tag makes it to the Olympics Well, not quite. Laser guns will replace air guns at the Olympics, for the modern pentathlon, beginning in 2012. Billed as the “way of the future,” organizers say that safety will no longer be a concern, and that events could be held at parks or even shopping malls! I guess the safety issue of a laser beam in one’s eye is not a concern to officials. Rumor has it that other Olympic events will be restructured, in the name of safety: the javelin throw will be done via a Wii, and the hammer throw and discus will utilize nerf technology.

###

An offer he can’t refuse? If offered a 15% raise (on top of your $150,000 / year salary), 4 times the stock benefits, and a $500,000 bonus – just to stay a year more – would you refuse it, as well?

###

How did he become Mr. Unpopular? Because, I think, he finally showed his true colors (please, no racist intent was meant by the use of the word “colors”).

###

At first, complaints about his use of the teleprompter were laughed off by liberal comics… Now, even Matthews is tiring of Obama’s dependence on it.

He was a rabid environmentalist.  He considered babies "parasitic human infants", and wanted all "pro-birth" programs to push "stopping human birth".  He was extremely anti-war, and equated having more humans with more war.  He considered civilization "filth", and its religious roots "disgusting".

And ThinkProgress, an extremely popular liberal blog, calls out the Right over this guy, James Jay Lee, who took hostages at the Discovery Channel, because one of his eleven points refers to immigration. 

Really?  Is this what passes for intellectual honesty on the Left these days?  A guy who said Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth" woke him up is a product of the Right?

None other than President of the United States Bill Clinton blamed conservative talk radio for Timothy McVeigh, and recently brought that back up in light of the Tea Party.  Conservatives against the "Ground Zero Mosque" were blamed for the stabbing of a Muslim cabbie (until it was found that it was a GZM supporter who stabbed the cabbie who was against the Mosque).  And Caleb Howe reminds us:

Lee acted irrationally. His environmental extremism was likely a function of his derangement, rather than the source of it. He latched on. He took it to the extreme, to say the least. Lee was not, by any measure that I would choose, a sane man. The story told by his brother-in-law – one of temper, erratic behavior, and irrational views – recalls Jerry Kane.

Jerry Kane, and his son Joe, killed two police officers and were killed themselves, in a shoot-out precipitated by a simple traffic stop. Jerry Kane, too, was an unstable man. His hometown mayor said of him that “You were always looking over your shoulder to make sure he wasn’t there. You never knew what he was going to do. I always thought he was an unstable individual.” Like Lee, the aftermath anecdotes painted a picture of paranoia and fear. But that didn’t stop liberal sites like Crooks and Liars from laying him at the feet of the conservative movement. Or Joseph Stack. Or Richard Poplawski. Or Byron Williams. It didn’t stop them from suggesting that Erick [Erickson] was responsible for a census worker slaying.

In fact, every time someone is shot in a lone gunman scenario, the right, and the tea parties and talk radio in particular, are virtually instantaneously blamed by the left at large for “violent” rhetoric and instigation.

Stop me, again, if you’ve heard THAT one before.

We never stop hearing from the MSNBC left how the Fox News right is stirring up violence. But when someone clearly basing his murderous intent on the idea that humans are going to destroy the world, and soon, acts on the dire prophecies of Al Gore … well suddenly you can’t blame rhetoric for crazy people.

Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz will simply not take responsibility for this guy.  I don’t think they should, but they should then not require the Right to take responsibility for the acts of other nuts.

But they will, as will Bill Clinton.  This is what passes for intellectual honesty on the Left.

No, I’m not talking about the "Ground Zero Mosque".  I’m talking about the Dove World Outreach Center’s plan to burn Korans on September 11th.

There’s nothing unconstitutional about doing with your own property what you wish.  Insofar as there are any relevant ordinances, it’s a local issue.  But also, people are free to exercise their right to protest and express their displeasure at such a thing, and try to convince those who are doing it to reconsider their plans, as I am trying to do.

OK, now I’m talking about the "Ground Zero Mosque".  Or both.

Are liberal websites who criticize the Dove Center’s burning of Korans and mock them anti-Christian bigots?  Certainly this criticism, in and of itself, is not proof of any such bigotry.  They just feel it’s wrong and are expressing their opinion.  I would be building a straw man to suggest that they are motivated by hate of Christians.  Equally, appealing to the constitutionality of this would be ignoring the other, more substantive, points of their protest.

And yet when the tables are turned, out come their straw men and their baseless accusations.  Liberal talking heads speak of constitutionality of building the Mosque on private property and accuse opponents of Islamophobia.  A nutty and drunk cab passenger killing his Muslim cabbie is pointed to as an example of the alleged overall fear, even though the perp was for the Mosque and the Muslim victim against it. 

Why can’t we have a civil discussion about race, religion or any sort of sensitive subject in this country?  This is a big reason why. 

Yes, it’s that time of the week again, where I toss out a bunch of links that I was too lazy to do a full blog post on.

Turns out the Iraq war didn’t break the bank.  It’s understandable that you might think that, but that only indicates a need to get your news from more sources.  The MSM loves to parrot DNC talking points.

(Liberal) feminism is dead.  Long live (conservative) feminism!

Jim Wallis said that Marvin Olasky (World magazine editor) “lies for a living” when Olasky noted that Wallis got $200,000 from George Soros.  When it was pointed out that he, in fact, did, then came the abject apology in sackcloth and ashes, “Well, it was so small I forgot.”  UPDATE: Wallis has issued a formal apology.

Three months ago, James Cameron was ready to “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads”, speaking of those who dispute anthropogenic global warming.  At the very last minute, after changing his demands over and over for how a debate was to be run, he cancelled.  Now that takes guts.  Or something.

In England, teachers are dropping history lessons on the Holocaust and the Crusades, for fear of offending Muslims who are taught Holocaust denial and a different view of the Crusades at local mosques.  They’re afraid of challenging “anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils”.  So much for academia being the standard bearer of truth and free speech.

A back door repeal of the First Amendment by … social workers?  Well, when liberal ideologues get ahold of professional organizations, nuttiness does ensue.  Look at most unions.

And finally, a US district judge put a temporary halt to embryonic stem cell research.  Some believe this will devastate scientific research, but  Steve Breen puts it in perspective.  (Click for a larger image.)

An Islamic cabbie was stabbed by a white guy in New York City.  The all-knowing Left jumped on this as clear proof that Republicans are to blame for this.  Juan Cole said this explicitly.  Foster Kramer at the Village Voice wondered aloud if this was the first "Ground Zero Mosque" hate crime.  (More finger pointing from the Left noted by Michelle Malkin.) 

Turns out the attacker supports the building of the mosque.  Little inconvenient truth, that.  And the cabbie?  He’s opposed to it.  This just turns the Left’s arguments upside down and they’re scrambling to deal with it, updating those posts to try to tie this attacker to the Right, or blame the Right for him regardless of his politics.

What’s next, liberals firebombing the offices of a Democrat?  Why, yes.

But hey, those Tea Partiers are just so violent, right?  Right?

That’s what happens when I take a Friday vacation day.

Democrats are in a struggle with Republicans to see who can repeal portions of ObamaCare first.  And now that Harry Reid has actually read the bill, he’s finally realized that this is going to hurt the hospitals in his state more than it’s going to help them.  As much as Democrats complained about the delays in getting the thing passed, you’d think they’d have read it by the time it did.

Put Obama in the Oval Office, and he’ll repair our standing with the world…or so went the campaign thought.  A poll of Arab public opinion, supposedly an area where Bush had destroyed our credibility, shows that little had changed.  In fact, some indicators are even worse than under the eeevil Bush.

A very interesting article suggesting that Evangelical Churches are the new “Mainline” Christian churches, and that the traditionally “mainline” denominations, as they have become more liberal, shrink and thus have less influence on society (spiritually speaking).  A very good interview of Rodney Stark, who’s been following this a long time.

I’ve been asked, regarding the Tea Partier’s wish to reduce government spending, why now?  Why not during Bush or Clinton or even Reagan.  I keep saying that the spending going on now is unprecedented, and Bruce McQuain explains some of the reasons and ramifications of this spend-fest.

How’s that stimulus stimulating the economy?  Not so well, actually.

The “classy” Left, taking its usual name-calling tact against the Tea Party.  And lest you dismiss this as some loner in a basement, it’s got huge funding partners.

And finally, a study in religious tolerance from Chuck Asay.  (Click for a larger image.)

Paul Krugman has often touted the wonders of the information coming out of the Congressional Budge Office (CBO).  This was especially true during the health care bill and stimulus debates.  James Taranto hits some of the highlights.

“The Congressional Budget Office has looked at the future of American health insurance, and it works. . . . Last week the budget office scored the full proposed legislation from the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). And the news–which got far less play in the media than the downbeat earlier analysis–was very, very good. Yes, we can reform health care.”–former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, New York Times, July 6, 2009

“Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded, the proposed legislation would reduce, not increase, the budget deficit. And by giving us a chance, finally, to rein in the ever-growing spending of Medicare, it would greatly improve our long-run fiscal prospects.”–Krugman, New York Times, Dec. 4, 2009

“The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2050 the emissions limits in recent proposed legislation would reduce real G.D.P. by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent from what it would otherwise have been. If we split the difference, that says that emissions limits would slow the economy’s annual growth over the next 40 years by around one-twentieth of a percentage point–from 2.37 percent to 2.32 percent. That’s not much.”–Krugman, New York Times, Dec. 7, 2009

“Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap [for cutting Medicare costs, offered by Rep. Paul Ryan], offers a translation: ‘Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.’ In short, there would be Medicare cuts.”–Krugman, New York Times, Feb. 12, 2010

“And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform [ObamaCare] will look better in its second decade than it did in its first.”–Krugman, New York Times, March 12, 2010

“As Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, recently put it, ‘There is no intrinsic contradiction between providing additional fiscal stimulus today, while the unemployment rate is high and many factories and offices are underused, and imposing fiscal restraint several years from now, when output and employment will probably be close to their potential.’ “–Krugman, New York Times, July 2, 2010

“That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus.”–Krugman, New York Times, July 5, 2010

But as soon as a Republican starts to use CBO numbers to show how his plan for overhauling federal spending and taxes, well suddenly it is simplicity itself to game the system.

“What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that–no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be.”–Krugman, NYTimes.com, Aug. 6, 2010

This bit of information would have been good to give to his readers back in the day.  You know, those readers who take everything he says at face value.

This just in:  Shirley Sherrod is planning to sue Andrew Breitbart, whose blog ran with a story accusing her of being racist. There has been no confirmation to the rumor that the basis of Sherrod’s lawsuit is that Breitbart’s actions brought to light the ineptitude of both the Obama Administration and the NAACP, as well as causing Howard Dean to stick his foot in his mouth.

It’s been interesting to see the continued liberal ranting regarding the Sherrod incident – that of USDA offical Shirley Sherrod being forced to resign due to the publication of a partial video of her allegedly espousing racist views. Over the weekend, Howard Dean ignorantly attributed the whole mess to the “absolutely racist” FoxNews, despite the fact that Sherrod resigned before FoxNews had aired the video footage. Even Sherrod herself is cashing in on her Warhol minutes, claiming that Andrew Breibart (whose website the original video was posted) wants to take us back to the days of slavery.

Now, I thought that Obama’s election had elevated us beyond the racial divide of our past? I thought that Obama and, presumably, his administration, would usher in the era when persons were judged not by the color of their skin?

In Owning up to jumping the gun, my previous post on the Sherrod incident, the author of the piece at the New Mexico Independent refers to certain conservatives (originally) claiming that Sherrod was guilty of “reverse racism”. Well let’s be clear – racism is racism – any belief that one race is superior to another. There is no such thing as “reverse racism”, regardless of whether the views expressed are from blacks against whites. That blacks, or people of color, may suffer from racism more often than whites does not change the definition of the word racism.