Maverick Philosopher

Whether one accepts this argument or not, it clearly invokes no religious premise. It is therefore manifestly incorrect to say or imply that all opposition to abortion must be religiously-based. Theists and atheists alike could make use of the above argument.

And as a matter of fact there are pro-life atheists. Nat Hentoff is one. In The Infanticide Candidate for President, he takes Barack Obama to task:

But on abortion, Obama is an extremist. He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama — in the Illinois Senate — also voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, an alive infant was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors' orders to put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.

Hentoff is also right about the so-called Fairness Doctrine as I explain here.

Hitchens is also right about Geraldine Ferraro:

Ferraro may have sounded sour when she asserted that there can be political advantages to being black in the United States—and she said the selfsame thing about Jesse Jackson in 1984—but it's perfectly arguable that what she said is, in fact, true, and even if it isn't true, it's absurd to try and classify it as a racist remark.

But then our man goes off the deep end, joining Dawkins and the rest of the Gang:

How true it is that religion poisons everything.

Hitchens' brilliant mind, so capable of nuance, shuts down when religion comes up. He saw through the illusions of the Left and courageously broke with his former comrades; but in his unreasoning hatred of all religion he is a leftist still.

From Reflections on the Human Condition (Harper and Row, 1973):

He who proselytizes in the cause of unbelief is basically a man in need of belief. (p. 34)

It almost seems that nobody can hate America as much as native Americans. America needs new immigrants to love and cherish it. (p. 34)

Hoffer uses 'native Americans' above correctly as opposed to in the PeeCee manner. You may enjoy my Proof that I am a Native American.

Sorry to offend my European readers, but it must be said:

We are told that the paradise of the masses in America is a 'pig heaven.' Granted; but the Europe the masses left behind was a pigsty. (p. 32)

I'd quote more but another library patron has recalled the book from which I am quoting. The audacity of the fellow!

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten;
sie fliehen vorbei, wie naechtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jaeger erschiessen;
es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei.

Die Gedanken sind frei, my thoughts freely flower,
Die Gedanken sind frei, my thoughts give me power.
No scholar can map them, no hunter can trap them,
No man can deny: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich denk was ich will, und was mich begluecket,
Doch alles in der Still, und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei.

So I think as I please, and this gives me pleasure,
My conscience decrees this right I must treasure;
My thoughts will not cater to duke or dictator,
No man can deny: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Und sperrt man mich ein in finsteren Kerker,
das alles sind rein vergebliche Werke;
denn meine Gedanken zerreissen die Schranken
und Mauern entzwei: Die Gedanken sind frei.

And if tyrants take me, and throw me in prison,
My thoughts will burst free like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, the structure will tumble,
And free men will cry: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Drum will ich auf immer den Sorgen entsagen
und will mich auf nimmer mit Grillen mehr plagen.
Man kann ja im Herzen stets lachen und scherzen
und denken dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei.

So worries I will always renounce
And never torture myself with whims when they pounce
Because in one's heart one can keep laughing and joking
While thinking: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich liebe den Wein, mein Mädchen vor allen,
sie tut mir allein am besten gefallen.
Ich bin nicht alleine bei meinem Glas Weine,
mein Mädchen dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

I love the wine, and my girl even more,
Only I like her best of all.
I'm not alone with my glass of wine,
my girl is with me: The thoughts are free!

I did receive a very nice supportive letter from Panayot Butchvarov, although it may have been in reference to an earlier letter in which I protested the APA's taking of a group stand against capital punishment. Having lived under Communism, Butch is familiar with the perils of groupthink. You may enjoy my post, Young Butchvarov Swims to Freedom and Makes His Mark in Philosophy.

I am glad to hear you let your membership lapse. So did I. And I encourage other conservatives and libertarians to ask themselves whether it is really in their best interest to fund Left-leaning organizations. But even liberals should be able to appreciate that professional organizations ought not take group stands on eminently debatable political questions. Here is the Iraq letter, published in the Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 77, no. 2 (Nov., 2003), p. 85.

Dear Editor:

The APA Pacific Division has proposed a resolution to "express our serious doubts about the morality, legality and prudence of a war against Iraq led by the United States." If individual members have doubts, it is their right to express them in their capacity as private citizens. But a collective expression by the APA as a whole, or in any of its Divisions, is clearly inappropriate. The reason should be obvious. The purpose of the APA is "exclusively educational, literary and scientific . . . " as per its constitution. It is therefore in keeping with its charter that the APA provide a framework in which serious discussion of questions concerning pacifism, just war doctrine, etc., can take place. But for the APA to endorse pacifism, or just war theory, or a version of just war theory that rules out preemptive strikes, or to express doubts about the moral justification of a particular war, is clearly in violation of its mandate. This would be as wrong, and indeed as absurd, as if the APA were to adopt an official stance on the mind-body problem, or on any other philosophical problem. If the APA is not prepared to take sides in the debate between, say, John Searle and Daniel Dennett, then it ought not take sides in the debate in foreign policy between, say, William J. Bennett and Noam Chomsky.

But the effort and expense spent on this hopelessly belated resolution are not entirely wasted. The arguments given in favor of the resolution, fallacious as they are, provide excellent fodder for logical analysis, and so may be of some use to teachers of logic. The latter can say to their students: Here is what happens when otherwise intelligent people allow ideological bias to cloud their thinking.

The bloodbath that conservative anti-Communists predicted in the wake of American withdrawal [from Vietnam] did take place and could not be denied by any honest observer. Yet New Left veteran, Danny Schechter, now a $100,000 a year producer with ABC-TV's 20/20, returned from Indochina after the massacres raving about the revolutionary achievements of Pol Pot and sporting a T-shirt that boasted: "We won in Cambodia." (K. L. Billingsley, "A New Left Balance Sheet" in Peter Collier and David Horowitz, eds. Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back At The Sixties, Madison Books 1989, p. 251, hyperlink added.)

Billingsley's story about Schechter's T-shirt is corroborated by Ronald Radosh:

Soon after [the fall of Saigon in 1975], when Pol Pot's brutal forces ovethrew the Lon Nol regime in Cambodia and began the evacuation of the cities and the murder of thousands of their own countrymen, we again cheered. On a trip to Boston, Allis and I stayed at the home of her friend Emily Schatzow, who was then going out with Danny Schechter, the radical newcaster on the leading rock station, WBCN, who called himself "Danny Schechter, the news dissector." Schechter told us about visiting Cambodia for his station and seeing all the corrupt members of the ancien régime trembling before the fighting spirit of the forces led by Pol Pot. When Cambodia fell, Schechter wore a T-shirt with the slogan "We won in Vietnam and Cambodia." (Ronald Radosh, Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left, and the Leftover Left, Encounter Books, 2001, pp. 130-131.)

Now that you know something about Schechter, read his e-mail:

Nothing very "maverick": about your philosophy--the same stereotyping, "lefty" putdowns, refusal to grapple with deeper economic problems, blame the victim mentality, unwillingness even now to realize the flaws of a free market unregulated system, inability to account for the billions of dollars lost by financial institutions because of greed and incompetetence, and failure to realize that some of the people I spoke with are conservative and can't be lumped together.,,.,.

Why in the name of philsopny[sic], such MUDDLED comemntary[sic]? .....The phlosophers[sic] have only studied the world, the point is to change it.

Which philosopher said that....think your crank needs more cranking

PH.D, my ass

Danny Schechter Director IN DEBT WE TRUST

1. This e-mail arrived without salutation of course; leftists have a problem with civility. In Leftists and Civility I take a stab at explaining why.

2. Schechter apparently doesn't know what a maverick is. So permit me to explain. A maverick, according to Robert Hendrickson, is "any person who holds himself apart from the herd, a nonconformist." The word is an eponym that derives from 'Samuel Augustus Maverick' (1803-1870). The gentleman named ran cattle that bore no brand. These animals were soon called mavericks, and then the term was extended to analogously unbranded persons. (QPB Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, 2nd ed., Facts on File, 2004, p. 473)

Schechter is making a very common mistake among those on the Left. He thinks that only leftists can be mavericks and that conservatives must be herd animals. This is connected with the equally nonsensical idea that the Left owns dissent. I very patiently explain what is wrong with this silly notion in On Dissent.

This notion that only lefties can be mavericks or dissenters or critical thinkers is particularly absurd in light of the fact that it is the Left that invented Political Correctness. PC after all came from the CP. Vivian Gornick in The Romance of American Communism (Basic Books 1977, p. 170) tells the tale of a poor fellow who was drummed out of the American Communist Party in the 1950's on charges of ‘white chauvinism.’ His crime? Serving watermelon at a garden party. And you thought that Political Correctness was something new? PC originated with the CP. There is no bigger bunch of lemmings than leftists.

3. Do I "blame the victim"? Schechter now trots out the standard victimology of the Left. Liberals and leftists love 'victims' for they make up their 'base.' 'Victims' are their ticket to power. He simply cannot understand that a person who makes financial mistakes day in, day out, year after year victimizes himself. He cannot understand such notions as self-denial, self-control, taking responsibility for one's actions, not blaming other people and circumstances.

4. "Free market unregulated system?" Is Danny delusional? Does he really think we have laissez-faire capitalism in the United States?

5. Schechter tries to quote Karl Marx but doesn't quite succeed. The 11th Thesis on Feuerbach reads, Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kömmt drauf an, sie zu verändern. "The philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Danny was close, though.

What he doesn't understand and never will understand, and what no Marxist understands is that truly ameliorative change presuppose a correct understanding of the world. Absent that, radical change is not improvement but disaster -- which is what Communism has led to. Or you don't think that the Communist murder of 100 million in the 20th century was a disaster? But someone who celebrates Pol Pot (see above quotations) cannot be expected to understand that.

The point is to understand the world so that your 'change' doesn't make a mess of it. Bear this in mind as you listen to the Democratic Party candidates chant their 'change' mantra.

If Schecter had any decency he would have thanked me for plugging his documentary which I described as "very interesting" and for linking to a YouTube excerpt of it. He might also have noticed that I described the credit companies as "predatory." The YouTube clip, meanwhile, has been removed. It would be a hoot, wouldn't it, if Schechter the socialist had it removed. But a decent leftist? Decency and civility are not among anything they would recognize as virtues. It is all just 'bourgeois ideology' to them. 'Decent leftist' is a good cadidate for oxymoron status.

And yet the guy, despite his obvious virtues, really rankles me. He said, a while back, that Americans won't pick lettuce. How could anyone say something that preternaturally stupid if he wasn't pandering? Of course there are Americans who will pick lettuce — but you have to pay them a decent wage. If illegal aliens are allowed to flood into the country, however, illegals who will work for chicken feed, then the growers will have no incentive to pay a decent wage.

I saw McCain on C-Span this morning. He was asked a question about drugs and gang-related drug violence due to weak border security. He uttered some platitudes but failed to make the essential point, namely, that, along with other measures, a physical barrier needs to be constructed to help stem the illegal flood.

Lindsay Graham, on the same C-Span panel, praised McCain for placing love of country above personal amnbition. But isn't it obvious that McCain's refusal to take the obviously right approach to illegal immigration bespeaks the fact that his desire for high office trumps his love of country? The man is no profile in courage. He panders for the sake of the Hispanic vote.

And please let's not hear anything about his comportment during the Vietnam war. None of that is very relevant, not in his case, not in Bill Clinton's case, nor in John Kerry's. What is relevant is what these gentlemen have done recently, what they have stood for, how they have voted. I am afraid Tammy Bruce is mostly right about John McCain, though I would not go as far as she does:

Let me be blunt. McCain is a self-serving, opportunistic pig. He, like other open-borders, Americans-Are-Lazy politicians, is a man who has grown soft and fat and elitist in Washington, DC, and has developed an obvious contempt for the average working American. Not only does he not deserve to even think about being president, he should not be in the U.S. senate. He is an example of the opportunistic narcissists in Washington whose only concern is their own career as they do whatever they think it'll take to advance themselves.

Gun-totin' Tammy is one straight-shooter. McCain's a careerist driven by personal ambition ueber alles, though he can't hold a a candle to Hillary Clinton in this regard. She is the Platonic Form of naked political ambition.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant

The neologisms 'homophobic' and Islamophobic' — I hesitate to call them words — are particularly idiotic. A phobia is an irrational fear. One who argues against the morality of homosexual practices, or gives reasons for opposing 'gay' marriage is precisely — presenting arguments, and not expressing any fear, let alone any phobia. The arguments may or may not be cogent. But they are expressive of reason, and are intended to appeal to the reason of one's interlocutor. To dismiss them as an expression of a phobia shows a lack of respect for reason and for the persons who proffer the arguments. And similarly for 'Islamophobia.' There is nothing irrational in being concerned about the threat of militant Islam.

I hesitate to call liberals fascists for reasons given elsewhere in these pages and most recently in the comments to this post; but there is something thuggish about them. They attempt to shut down debate by the hurling of such epithets as 'homophobe' and 'Islamophobe.' The implication is that anyone who differs with them is cognitively deficient. I would have though that cognitive deficiency is more justly chargeable to their account.

"But some blacks found it offensive." So what? That's their fault, not Hillary's. They were not justified in taking offense at her objectively innocuous remark and it might be argued that their taking offense was itself offensive. For in taking offense they unjustly imputed unsavory motives to her.

The present social and political climate in which 'feelings' trump truth, a climate in which being 'sensitive' is a desideratum to be genuflected before, is of course one that contemporary liberals have brought about and fostered. And now it is beginning to backfire on them as David Brooks observes:

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.

For another example of how feelings trump truth in the world of the liberal, see Defending Coulter on "Jews Need to be Perfected."

1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

No. People should be judged on an individual basis, by merit. They should all be held to the same standard. The race, sex, or creed of the applicant ought not be considered in hiring decisions.

2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

No. It is not good for immigrants in that it impedes their assimilation. It is not good for America since it promotes division, lack of communication, and ultimately ethnic Balkanization.

3. Murderers should never be put to death.

No. Justice demands the death penalty in certain cases such as the case of Tookie Williams.

4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

No. It was the non-adoption of such a policy, inter alia, that led to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

No. If journalism and law can be legitimate professions, then so can the military.

6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

Perhaps, if the case for non-interventionism is strong. But I don't see that it is strong.

7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

No. Parents who send their children to private schools face a double-whammy: they must support the public schools with their taxes and they must shell out for private education to make sure their children get a good education as opposed to politically correct indoctrination. So it is only fair that they should receive vouchers. Besides, competition breeds excellence. Competition with private schools can only redound to the benefit of public schools.

8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

No, but it says something about the Dems.

9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

No. The State is involved in marriage in order to promote a legitimate common interest, namely, that there be healthy families in which men are tamed, women are protected, and children are socialized. There is no reason to extend these protections to any two people who choose to cohabit. On the other hand, the State should not prohibit cohabitation. This position may be consistent with the allowance of carefully crafted civil unions.

10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

No. If you understood the immediately preceding comment, you will understand why.

11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

No. This is too idiotic to commment on.

12. The present high tax rates are good.

No. Higher taxes, less liberty. Liberty is good.

13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.

No. Beneath refutation.

14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

No. Are non-terrorists and terrorists morally equivalent?

15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

No. Were they able to handle Saddam Hussein or the outbreaks of African genocide?

16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

No. The quota mentality is politcal correctness at its most idiotic.

17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.

No. If you can't see that partial-birth abortion is morally offensive, then you are morally obtuse.

18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

No. Tobacco extremism is a prime example of the misplaced moral enthusiasm of contemporary liberals.

19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

No. If I have to explain this to you, then you are too stupid to profit from any explanation.

20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

No. Profiling, racial and otherwise, is a legitimate law enforcement technique.

21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

No. Poverty no more causes crime than wealth causes virtuous behavior.

22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

No. Why are liberasls so contemptibly stupid?

23. No culture is morally superior to any other.

No. Could anyone with a brain believe this?

Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold? And if you don't hold to this liberal nonsense, why on earth are you still a Democrat?

You're on the money, Tom. There is something schizoid about the Left: anti-religious in general, but not when it comes to religion's most virulent subspecies, the fanatic fundamentalism of the Islamo-headchopper-offers. Incapable of perceiving real threats, leftists manufacture imaginary ones. Islamic theocracy, which is real, they ignore so that they can bemoan theocracy in the USA which exists only in their febrile imaginations. And their talk of 'Christofascism' is simply delusional. An example is NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller whose bizarre excesses are documented in Pessimistic Thoughts on Political Discourse in America. Tom continues:

It is significant that in the particular incident you cite, several Jewish writers (Praeger and Schlussel) came immediately to the the defense of Miss Coulter's remarks, pointing out that is not hateful but rather logical for Christians to want Jews to perfect their faith by accepting Jesus as the Savior. As Pat Buchanan pointed out in response Abe Foxman's complaints concerning Good Friday prayers for Jewish conversion, to refuse to say those prayers would be truly anti-Semitic. But does Foxman or any one else who screams about such things really believe that those prayers will lead to pogroms? I do not really believe that those characters really thought that Gibson's Passion would incite pogroms. No, they are up to something else. Such folk want to sow enmity between Christians and Jews, because being the secularists that they really are they know that only they benefit from strife among God-fearers. I think we should we reject as preposterous the notion unless we are Jewish we have no standing to criticize people who fear that conversion prayers will lead to another holocaust.

Now as to Miss Coulter being a liability to the conservative cause, I really cannot imagine that anyone has slipped out of the camp and embraced any of the delusions of the Left because he was offended by Ann's calling John Edwards a fag. Nor can I imagine someone teetering on the brink, about to open his or her mind to the truth that there is truth, falling back into the morass of relativism because of Ann's observation that it was difficult to see how Clinton saved the Constitution by "ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl." Granted, that last one did not belong in print, but it had me on the floor. Yes, I think that there are some things can be said in a living room but not on television. and I admit that she crosses lines and gets a few things wrong, but on balance she does a good job of digging up things about what the Left has been up to. Somebody has to preach to the choir members so they won't slide down the banister and sip whiskey in the cloak room. She has provided a lot of info that people really need to know in order to understand what is happening in the world. I look forward to her weekly columns, and I jump into chat room fray when she gets it wrong. But I think on balance she does more good.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks, Tom. Where we disagree is on the Coulter question. You say that somebody has to preach to the choir. That may be so. But the culture war won't be won by preaching to the choir or to the damned, for that matter. The 'saved' don't need converting, and the 'damned' are beyond the pale. It is the fence sitters that we need to reach, the open-minded folk who have yet to make up their minds. Ask yourself: how many serious and reasonable people are likely to be persuaded by Coulter's screeching and ad hominem attacks? I see her as little more that a hustler who has found a formula for turning a quick buck. When she is on the talk shows, does she ever engage her interlocutors in serious discussion? Not as far as I can tell. Conservatives ought to distance themselves from this screeching bombthrower. One expects incivility from the Left, but aren't we better than this?

What interests me is not this Coulter-Deutsch exchange, which is of no significance, but the typical leftist move of responding to a conservative statement by branding it as 'hateful.' As much of a jackass (jillass?) as Coulter is, there is nothing hateful or offensive about her remark. She was merely stating Christian doctrine, according to which Christianity completes or perfects Judaism. Christianity maintains that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind and that salvation is through him and him alone. From the point of view of Christianity, Judaism, which does not recognize Jesus as savior, is soteriologically deficient. Whether true, false, or incoherent, that is the doctrine or part of it.

Now the general question is whether one can reasonably take offense at, and brand as 'hateful,' a doctrine with which one disagrees. And the answer of anyone who can think clearly ought to be, 'Obviously not.' Let's consider some examples.

1. Islam recognizes and honors Jesus as a prophet, but not as the Son of God. Now if a Muslim were to explain this point to a Christian, and present the Muslim considerations in favor of it, considerations having to to with the radical unicity and transcendence of Allah, etc., the Christian would be quite unreasonable were he to find the explanation 'hateful.' Muslims have arguments and considerations of one sort or another which motivate their view. To dismiss their position and the considerations in favor of it as 'hateful' is, to put it mildly, unreasonable. To put it harshly, it is the mark of an emoting idiot. What leftists and liberals need to understand is that dissent and disagreement are not hate: if A dissents from B's views, it does not follow that A hates B. A may hate B or he may not; but the mere fact of dissent does not demonstrate hate.

2. Jerry Falwell came under severe rhetorical fire for his suggestion, which he later retracted, that the events of 9/11/01 were divine punishment for the sins of pagans, abortionists, gays, and lesbians. Whatever one thinks of his brand of fundamentalism, and I do not think much of it, or of any form of fundamentalism, Biblical literalism, or inerrantism, Falwell was merely presenting his fundamentalist doctrine. His God is a a god who intervenes in history and 'smites evildoers.' And for Falwell, homosexuality is a perversion and abortion a great moral evil. For someone holding Falwell's beliefs, it is quite natural to interpret the events of 9/11 as divine punishment.

Of course, one has every right to disagree with Falwell's theology and moral doctrine. One can present a reasoned case against them. What is contemptible on the part of the Left, however, is the attempt to silence him by branding his remarks as 'hateful.' Again, he is merely stating his position, thereby exercising his right to free speech. Where is the hate? If one considers abortion to be a great moral evil, and if one asserts and argues for this thesis, which can be done, by the way, without invoking any religious premises (see here), one is not expressing hatred of 'pro-choice' advocates, one is expressing disagreement.

What I just said is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to say it. But given the preternatural stupidity of contemporary liberals, simnple truths need to be stated again and again.

3. Vegetarians have various sorts of arguments against meat-eating. Emotional resistance to such arguments by non-vegetarians is understandable: few people relish the prospect of altering long-standing, deeply-ingrained habits. But consider how absurd it would be for a meat-eater to brand as 'hateful' a vegetarian's moral condemnation of meat-eating. The vegetarian is merely stating his position and adducing his arguments. If the arguments are sound, then the meat-eater is engaged in an immoral practice. There is nothing 'hateful' in pointing out what one considers to be an immoral practice.

None of the above is to be construed as a defense of Coulter the person. I consider her a liability to the conservative cause. My concern has been to expose a shabby knee-jerk liberal-left tactic which is unfortunately all too often in evidence.

Hillary Clinton may be an example. Her latest idea, and a silly one it is, is for the government to give every baby born in the U.S. a $5,000 'baby bond' to help defray the future costs of college and homeownership. The Huffington Post quotes her as saying:

I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home . . .

The article continues,

Clinton said such an account program would help people get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.

The lady's a pandering idiot. Doesn't she understand that one cannot promote the old conservative virtues of thrift, self-control, deferral of gratification, and the rest by giving people handouts? That "tradition of savings" that she is nostalgic about did not come about via government largesse. It grew out of attitudes and virtues, and is undermined, not promoted, by socialist giveaways. Poverty, as conservatives like to say, is not so much a lack of money as a lack of virtue. Assuming a relatively stable economic and political order such as we have enjoyed here in the USA for the last 60 years or so, it is not difficult to do well. But one cannot gratify every whim, run credit card debt, waste money on lotteries, etc.