I seem to have mixed friendships. On the one hand, Phil Orenstein has been arguing for Allen West for president. West is a retired Lt. Col. who was stationed at Fort Hood (see audio). On the other, Glenda McGee just e-mailed that she favors Andrew Napolitano.
Glenda writes in favor of Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano:
Subject: Brilliant Idea--Andrew Napolitano for President.
A constitutional Lawyer, not a politician, well known, respected by left and right, pass it on to EVERYONE.
Pawlenty, weak, Romney a Rino, Sarah, great but hated by too many.
Pass it on to all.
Phil writes in favor of Lt. Col. Allen West
Patriots,
Here is Lt Col. Allen West's terrific interview on the Steve Maltzberg show earlier today:
http://web.me.com/pac8185/Honest_Speaks/Podcast/Entries/2009/11/10_Steve_Malzberg_Interviews_Lt._Col._Allen_West.html
Thank you Honest Conservative, Pat Carfagno for preparing the Podcast!
Also just heard the good news at the end of the interview. Allen remarked that he will be in NYC on Jan 12th for a Hudson Institute sponsored event. I will send details as soon as I have them, but for now all Patriots mark your calendars for that day and let's give the good Col. a big patriotic New York welcome and send-off to Congress!!
Phil
GO WEST!!
I think that Phil and Glenda are on the right track. We need an infusion of new blood into the national leadership of the Republican Party. Any new candidates need to be vetted on support for the bailout and a game plan for elimination of much of the junk government in Washington, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
101st Airborne and David Limbaugh Respond to My Blog
I wrote about the moral implications of Barack Obama's dithering about the Fort Hood mass murder here and also here.
David Limbaugh, celebrity author, responds:
----- Original Message -----
From: David Limbaugh
To: Mitchell Langbert
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Moral Confusion About Murder
Bravo! Well done!
As well, Jim Crum and a member of the 101st Airborne (if you recall, the historic subject of the classic HBO series, Band of Brothers) write:
Mitchell,
Congratulations.
You've been read by a large number of 101st Airborne, active and retired. A few responses to this have even come in from overseas, yeah the "dumb soldiers", those 22 year old yokels, are actually not so "dumb" and I would argue are better read than many of your faculty...because they are required to. But that's another story.
The missive immediately below is from a man who is largely responsible for intelligence. Good man.
Thanks for Bob Robbins for sending this along.
JJC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From:
To:
Sent: Wed, Nov 11, 2009 12:51 am
Subject: America's Growing Moral Bankruptcy
An offering contribution from a correspondent of mine, and a Christian conservative.
If Christian conservatives are going to be the sole custodians of virtues and morality in our culture, we need to listen to what many of them have to say with a fine-tuned ear. The title of the article that was forwarded is poignant and valid. Moral bankruptcy, and its manifestations in multiculturalism, are one reason why our nation is being crippled by concepts like political correctness, speech codes, hate-crimes laws (the very idea that "crime" must be modified by the adjective "hate" in order to somehow make a crime more of a crime is a politically correct contradiction that somehow adds even more degrees to violations of law, life and property). Moral relativism is, or seems to be, the code by which Barack Obama lives, and by which he is trying to lead the nation. Itself a bankrupt ideology, the "conciliatory" exterior of moral relativism cannot survive the scrutiny of logic and reason (or even the light of day). The concept is a contradiction in terms by its own construct. If everyone is entitled to "their truth" then truth has no meaning in an absolute sense, since by logical test A cannot be A and Not-A at the same time and in the same reference. Therefore, the "relativity of truth" is a cruel contradiction, and a hopelessly tangled logical error. Likewise, as Daniel Patrick Moynahan said: One may be entitled to one's own opinion, but not one's own facts." By this, Moynahan lamented the idea that debates must have rules, and those rules must be applied in order for discourse and dialogue to take place at all. Without framework, even simple conversations are only two sides speaking past each other and not treating the subject. We saw this the past week from none other than the flagrant violator of truth and logic, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The "fact" that she "believes" what she says (at the moment she says it) does not make her "honest." In fact, Pelosi is by far the most dishonest and corrupt politician in the Houses of Congress today, because she has sold her honor and integrity for power. That is a far more dangerous variety of greed than just selling one's vote for money. Sown within the nineteen hundred pages of the national health care reform bill are the seeds of the downfall of our economic system, and the substitution of government by edict from an elite oligarchy who will ultimately strive to control every system of authority and power (and wealth) in our nation. This is so far distant from the spirit of the law enshrined in the US Constitution that we gasp in distress, since the Constitution as written and as intended in law is slowly disappearing from sight--driven from its primary place by a collectivist philosophy that espouses the very things that created the rift between the thirteen colonies and the "mother country" in the eighteenth century. The states are becoming the "colonies" of a "federal" system that is neither federal nor a system, but a community of "philosopher kings" who presume because they were elected by a majority constituency of their home district, that they have the right to remodel the entire government structure to suit their majority instead of the entire "constituency" population of their home district.
And the great waffler-in-chief, Barack Obama, continues to say much and nothing at the same time. He speaks to his audiences with great conviction, with the help of a teleprompter, and he has a charisma that conceals his ambition and truly bankrupt moral conviction that "everyone should have an equal chance at the pie." This is totally different from everyone having a chance at improving their lives, getting a job and making their own choices. The recent legislation, including health care "reform" is aimed at developing further the "welfare class client" system of voters dependent on the federal government for every essential of life, without paying any (monetary) penalty for the privilege. It is not an "opportunity." Yesterday, I sent out an article with comments that showed the real cost to the recipients of government "aid" in terms of an intangible burden placed on them and the rest of society that has a cost figure, in percent, at least, attached. As long as our nation continues to assume that we can control our urban poor minorities by throwing money and "benefits" at them in turn for their vote, we will have no chance of changing the course of the ship of our state, which, in my view, is bound for some very troubled waters, and soon..
David Limbaugh, celebrity author, responds:
----- Original Message -----
From: David Limbaugh
To: Mitchell Langbert
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Moral Confusion About Murder
Bravo! Well done!
As well, Jim Crum and a member of the 101st Airborne (if you recall, the historic subject of the classic HBO series, Band of Brothers) write:
Mitchell,
Congratulations.
You've been read by a large number of 101st Airborne, active and retired. A few responses to this have even come in from overseas, yeah the "dumb soldiers", those 22 year old yokels, are actually not so "dumb" and I would argue are better read than many of your faculty...because they are required to. But that's another story.
The missive immediately below is from a man who is largely responsible for intelligence. Good man.
Thanks for Bob Robbins for sending this along.
JJC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From:
To:
Sent: Wed, Nov 11, 2009 12:51 am
Subject: America's Growing Moral Bankruptcy
An offering contribution from a correspondent of mine, and a Christian conservative.
If Christian conservatives are going to be the sole custodians of virtues and morality in our culture, we need to listen to what many of them have to say with a fine-tuned ear. The title of the article that was forwarded is poignant and valid. Moral bankruptcy, and its manifestations in multiculturalism, are one reason why our nation is being crippled by concepts like political correctness, speech codes, hate-crimes laws (the very idea that "crime" must be modified by the adjective "hate" in order to somehow make a crime more of a crime is a politically correct contradiction that somehow adds even more degrees to violations of law, life and property). Moral relativism is, or seems to be, the code by which Barack Obama lives, and by which he is trying to lead the nation. Itself a bankrupt ideology, the "conciliatory" exterior of moral relativism cannot survive the scrutiny of logic and reason (or even the light of day). The concept is a contradiction in terms by its own construct. If everyone is entitled to "their truth" then truth has no meaning in an absolute sense, since by logical test A cannot be A and Not-A at the same time and in the same reference. Therefore, the "relativity of truth" is a cruel contradiction, and a hopelessly tangled logical error. Likewise, as Daniel Patrick Moynahan said: One may be entitled to one's own opinion, but not one's own facts." By this, Moynahan lamented the idea that debates must have rules, and those rules must be applied in order for discourse and dialogue to take place at all. Without framework, even simple conversations are only two sides speaking past each other and not treating the subject. We saw this the past week from none other than the flagrant violator of truth and logic, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The "fact" that she "believes" what she says (at the moment she says it) does not make her "honest." In fact, Pelosi is by far the most dishonest and corrupt politician in the Houses of Congress today, because she has sold her honor and integrity for power. That is a far more dangerous variety of greed than just selling one's vote for money. Sown within the nineteen hundred pages of the national health care reform bill are the seeds of the downfall of our economic system, and the substitution of government by edict from an elite oligarchy who will ultimately strive to control every system of authority and power (and wealth) in our nation. This is so far distant from the spirit of the law enshrined in the US Constitution that we gasp in distress, since the Constitution as written and as intended in law is slowly disappearing from sight--driven from its primary place by a collectivist philosophy that espouses the very things that created the rift between the thirteen colonies and the "mother country" in the eighteenth century. The states are becoming the "colonies" of a "federal" system that is neither federal nor a system, but a community of "philosopher kings" who presume because they were elected by a majority constituency of their home district, that they have the right to remodel the entire government structure to suit their majority instead of the entire "constituency" population of their home district.
And the great waffler-in-chief, Barack Obama, continues to say much and nothing at the same time. He speaks to his audiences with great conviction, with the help of a teleprompter, and he has a charisma that conceals his ambition and truly bankrupt moral conviction that "everyone should have an equal chance at the pie." This is totally different from everyone having a chance at improving their lives, getting a job and making their own choices. The recent legislation, including health care "reform" is aimed at developing further the "welfare class client" system of voters dependent on the federal government for every essential of life, without paying any (monetary) penalty for the privilege. It is not an "opportunity." Yesterday, I sent out an article with comments that showed the real cost to the recipients of government "aid" in terms of an intangible burden placed on them and the rest of society that has a cost figure, in percent, at least, attached. As long as our nation continues to assume that we can control our urban poor minorities by throwing money and "benefits" at them in turn for their vote, we will have no chance of changing the course of the ship of our state, which, in my view, is bound for some very troubled waters, and soon..
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Barack Obama's Moral Confusion About Murder
I had previously blogged about the difference between the moral richness described in Maratha Nussbaum's Fragility of Goodness and Barack Obama's cretinous response to mass murder. As I awaken this morning, I am reminded of the moral degeneracy of the New York Times with respect to Walter Duranty's reports about the Soviet Union in the 1930s and the failure of the American left to question the mass starvation in the Ukraine. The American left has never systematically examined its response to Stalin's mass murder of 65 million people, the worst in history, and the left's moral support of that mass murder. The left's hands have been and continue to be caked thick with blood. It is a movement of psychopathic apologists for murder.
In this light, America's communist president is unable to condemn the mass murder at Fort Hood. To the left, mass murder has always been a matter of moral complexity. To the left-controlled mass media and to our communist president, mass murder is a gray area to be debated. The killing of 100,000 people by Fidel Castro is a matter over which the New York Times glosses. Mao's killing of 25 million is a matter for the Times to ignore, or to publish an article about Mao in 1971 that said how well the Chinese state was working. And when the author, John Kenneth Galbraith, dies, do not mention that he wrote or the Times published such an article, but criticize Milton Friedman, who helped Pinochet, who murdered 3,000 people.
Such is a degenerate America, ruled by holocaust deniers and apologists for murder, led by a president who sees moral ambiguity in the mass murder of Americans killed by a traitor.
In this light, America's communist president is unable to condemn the mass murder at Fort Hood. To the left, mass murder has always been a matter of moral complexity. To the left-controlled mass media and to our communist president, mass murder is a gray area to be debated. The killing of 100,000 people by Fidel Castro is a matter over which the New York Times glosses. Mao's killing of 25 million is a matter for the Times to ignore, or to publish an article about Mao in 1971 that said how well the Chinese state was working. And when the author, John Kenneth Galbraith, dies, do not mention that he wrote or the Times published such an article, but criticize Milton Friedman, who helped Pinochet, who murdered 3,000 people.
Such is a degenerate America, ruled by holocaust deniers and apologists for murder, led by a president who sees moral ambiguity in the mass murder of Americans killed by a traitor.
Barack Obama A Moral Cretin
Abe Greenwald of Commentary (h/t Larwyn) comments on the strange statement of Barack Hussein Obama concerning the mass murder at Fort Hood:
>Barack Obama asked that we not “jump to conclusions” about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is alleged to have killed 13 Americans at Fort Hood last Thursday. Forget “jump to.” If only President Obama would crawl toward, or flirt with, or even stumble upon a conclusion, I’d be overjoyed. On this you can rely: Obama will never express a conclusive opinion on last Thursday’s massacre.
I happen to have been reading a wonderful book by the University of Chicago philosopher and classicist, Martha C. Nussbaum, entitled The Fragility of Goodness. The book was written in 1986. My philosophy professor at Sarah Lawrence College, Elfie Stock Raymond, was likely an admirer of Nussbaum because I see many parallels between Nussbaum's ideas and Elfie's that we discussed in conferences back in the early to mid 1970s, especially her rejection of Kantian ethics. Reading Nussbaum, 35 years later, I am able to better grasp that position.
The book is about moral complexity as seen through the eyes of Greek tragedians and philosophers, notably Aristotle. The third chapter, that I have been working through, is about Sophocles's Antigone. One of the themes of Greek tragedy is conflict among moral duties, and Antigone is about this, the conflict between Creon's unitary commitment to the good of the polis and Antigone's unitary commitment to her duties toward her dead brother, killed in a war against the same polis. Nussbaum argues that moral richness and complexity are at the heart of Sophocles's and other tragedians' vision, and that they contrast with a much more narrow vision of ethics of Plato, who sees an optimal moral path. The idea of moral optimality is carried forward by Kant. If you read Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem you see that Eichmann used Kant as a moral defense. This is consistent with Nussbaum's argument. Simplistic moral solutions are impoverished (p. 75):
>...the statement of human triumphs through reason turns out to be also a compressed document of reason's limitations, transgressions and conflicts. It suggests that the richer our scheme of values, the harder it will prove to effect a harmony within it. The more open we are to the presence of value, of divinity, in the world, the more surely conflict closes us in. The price of harmonization seems to be impoverishment, the price of richness disharmony. It looks, indeed, like an 'unwritten law' that 'nothing great comes into the life of mortals without disaster'. It is at this point that the men of the Chorus say, appropriately, 'looking on this strange portent, I think on both sides'.
I am waiting to get to Aristotle, but clearly his philosophy emphasizes the importance reconciliation of competing moral virtues.
Perhaps you can see the message for corporate maangement here. So many of our business leaders have had unitary moral codes. In the case of Jeffrey Skilling, the emphasis on creativity or the image of creativity at the expense of all other moral values. In the case of Robert Moses an emphasis on transportation flow at the expense of uprooting hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. In the case of the management theorist Chester Barnard, an emphasis on the moral code of the corporation at the expense of all other moral codes, including filial loyalty. These views are Kantian in that they assume a singular optimal moral solution. Barnard speaks of leadership as the creative reconciliation of moral codes, but his creativity is unitary in nature and so Creonic and Kantian--the simple value of corporate profit maximization is the ultimate good in his view; creativity comes in just to convince employees to forsake their other codes.
Here we have Barack Obama. His problem is not the conflict among virtues or the reconciliation of belief, but rather the bankruptcy of belief. He has no values at all. There is no moral ambiguity in an army officer's turning traitor to his country, murdering 13 people and wounding 30 more. Only an ethical cretin would claim that there is a need to "reserve judgment". What are the alternative moral considerations when one faces mass murder?
Obama's moral sickness reflects a deeper malaise in America. The nation has allowed ignorant ideologues to take control of its education system and its culture. School teachers who can barely read are indoctrinated in education schools as to cretinous, politically correct ideologies of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. As a result, Americans have increasingly become moral degenerates addicted to failed government solutions and incapable of thinking logically. Barack Obama's cretinous morality is a symptom, not a root cause, of American decline.
>Barack Obama asked that we not “jump to conclusions” about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is alleged to have killed 13 Americans at Fort Hood last Thursday. Forget “jump to.” If only President Obama would crawl toward, or flirt with, or even stumble upon a conclusion, I’d be overjoyed. On this you can rely: Obama will never express a conclusive opinion on last Thursday’s massacre.
I happen to have been reading a wonderful book by the University of Chicago philosopher and classicist, Martha C. Nussbaum, entitled The Fragility of Goodness. The book was written in 1986. My philosophy professor at Sarah Lawrence College, Elfie Stock Raymond, was likely an admirer of Nussbaum because I see many parallels between Nussbaum's ideas and Elfie's that we discussed in conferences back in the early to mid 1970s, especially her rejection of Kantian ethics. Reading Nussbaum, 35 years later, I am able to better grasp that position.
The book is about moral complexity as seen through the eyes of Greek tragedians and philosophers, notably Aristotle. The third chapter, that I have been working through, is about Sophocles's Antigone. One of the themes of Greek tragedy is conflict among moral duties, and Antigone is about this, the conflict between Creon's unitary commitment to the good of the polis and Antigone's unitary commitment to her duties toward her dead brother, killed in a war against the same polis. Nussbaum argues that moral richness and complexity are at the heart of Sophocles's and other tragedians' vision, and that they contrast with a much more narrow vision of ethics of Plato, who sees an optimal moral path. The idea of moral optimality is carried forward by Kant. If you read Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem you see that Eichmann used Kant as a moral defense. This is consistent with Nussbaum's argument. Simplistic moral solutions are impoverished (p. 75):
>...the statement of human triumphs through reason turns out to be also a compressed document of reason's limitations, transgressions and conflicts. It suggests that the richer our scheme of values, the harder it will prove to effect a harmony within it. The more open we are to the presence of value, of divinity, in the world, the more surely conflict closes us in. The price of harmonization seems to be impoverishment, the price of richness disharmony. It looks, indeed, like an 'unwritten law' that 'nothing great comes into the life of mortals without disaster'. It is at this point that the men of the Chorus say, appropriately, 'looking on this strange portent, I think on both sides'.
I am waiting to get to Aristotle, but clearly his philosophy emphasizes the importance reconciliation of competing moral virtues.
Perhaps you can see the message for corporate maangement here. So many of our business leaders have had unitary moral codes. In the case of Jeffrey Skilling, the emphasis on creativity or the image of creativity at the expense of all other moral values. In the case of Robert Moses an emphasis on transportation flow at the expense of uprooting hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. In the case of the management theorist Chester Barnard, an emphasis on the moral code of the corporation at the expense of all other moral codes, including filial loyalty. These views are Kantian in that they assume a singular optimal moral solution. Barnard speaks of leadership as the creative reconciliation of moral codes, but his creativity is unitary in nature and so Creonic and Kantian--the simple value of corporate profit maximization is the ultimate good in his view; creativity comes in just to convince employees to forsake their other codes.
Here we have Barack Obama. His problem is not the conflict among virtues or the reconciliation of belief, but rather the bankruptcy of belief. He has no values at all. There is no moral ambiguity in an army officer's turning traitor to his country, murdering 13 people and wounding 30 more. Only an ethical cretin would claim that there is a need to "reserve judgment". What are the alternative moral considerations when one faces mass murder?
Obama's moral sickness reflects a deeper malaise in America. The nation has allowed ignorant ideologues to take control of its education system and its culture. School teachers who can barely read are indoctrinated in education schools as to cretinous, politically correct ideologies of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. As a result, Americans have increasingly become moral degenerates addicted to failed government solutions and incapable of thinking logically. Barack Obama's cretinous morality is a symptom, not a root cause, of American decline.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
