Quick Takes – Madness In The Anglosphere: Censoring Parliamentary Hearings in Australia; Free Speech A Weapon Of War In New Zealand; Nurses Refusing To Treat Racists In The U.K.

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: America went right where the rest went wrong.

     First, a little advertisement from New Zealand:

     Carrying on…

     The regulators can’t let their own parliament let the people know what’s going on.

“Just when you thought Australia’s steamrolling toward censorship couldn’t get any worse, the heads of Australian government departments want new limits on how members of parliament share recordings of officials testifying at public parliamentary hearings.

“A new attempt to this end was made last week by the Secretaries Board, made up of the heads of Australia’s government departments. The board is currently chaired by Steven Kennedy, secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which advises the prime minister and coordinates policy across the government.

“The proposal was contained in a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards.

“The board is unhappy that politicians are using excerpts of the footage from these hearings, often to criticize the officials, and sometimes to ridicule them, by editing the clips and adding captions to highlight certain parts of the testimony.”

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives, Uncategorized, War & Terror | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Non-Neutrality Myth

     It Has become fashionable amongt the so-called “Common Good Conservatives” to treat virtue and liberty as a zero-sum game where too much liberty destroys virtue and that if virtue (but according to who) must be paramount for a dispensation of “liberty” to be allowed. This false dilemma fallacy, complete with a “strawman of liberty”, so as to speak, is part and parcel of the misleading and fundamentally dishonest begging of the “common good” question:

“The ‘common good’ quarrel on the Right hinges on a single question: does government exist chiefly to secure liberty, or to serve the common good? Put differently: are political communities meant to erect as few guardrails as possible so diverse peoples can actualize their choices? Or is the point of societies to embody a particular conception of the good life? And should, or how could, the government deploy its power to ensure those ends? Perhaps the ‘general Welfare,’ as the expressed purpose of government named in our Constitution, deserves more of our attention — even if we ask legitimate questions about the scope of its reach in achieving it.”

     Yup, the very phrasing of the question is ripe with presumptions and intended to beg the question to leas to the preferred outcome. The first rule of such debates is to not concede the loaded question, and it’s as loaded as a fully chambered revolver used to play this little game of Russian Roulette.

     Rather than play that game, let us posit a more honest question: Does government serve as a restrained and limited tool to maintain laws that rise above the rulers that are conducive towards both liberty and virtue; or is government simply the means by which some collective society with a collective will, as divined by an enlightened few, determine the “good life” that people have been ordered into living?

     Indeed it is quintessentially American, and our long heritage before our founding tracing back to the tossing off of the “Norman Yoke” with the recognition of a separation of society and state, for our government to be limited in power and scope, tasked with maintaining the minimal amount of powers and laws that are conducive towards people ordering themselves via the blessing of liberty into what has become the greatest country on Earth. The question of the scope of that limited government, and the particulars thereof, is a very different thing from that scope being unlimited.

     Societies are not constructed and morality can not be imposed, as the myriad socialist societies that have destroyed Europoe, and beyond, have aptly demonstrated. Nor is the “General Welfare” a grant beyond the Leftism even the Supreme Court foolishly allowed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and United States v. Butler (1936).

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Debate On The Right: Is America Fundamentally Good?

     Would America still be America is what Americans have in common ceased to be common and were replace with something fundamentally different. The question and implication of that commonality or lack thereof is discussed below, quoted in full below due to the limitations of Twitter’s/X’s embeds.

This is an interesting insight into politics in general, but also the schism that now exists in right-wing social media between conservatism and postliberalism…and the reason there is such a conservative backlash against JD Vance

This post basically says that while The West Wing was unabashedly liberal, the show still portrayed certain shared values that no long exists today and which conservatives also long for:

“America is fundamentally good.
Public service can be honorable.
Competence matters.
Patriotism belongs to everyone.”

Many of us older conservatives remember that this was normal not that long ago, and that most people still want that version of America because we’re tired of all the outrage, all the time nature of politics. We recognize that social media is not real life and that the culture wars don’t define our day to day existence. Still, we feel it’s worth fighting because values still matter and if we lose the culture then the country will eventually slip towards something worse…but not imminently

The post-liberals seem to believe THAT America is gone. Many are younger and don’t remember what normal was, and why it was better. They think the world is what they see on social media, rather than anecdotal evidence of the worst that exists on both sides. To them it’s a 5 alarm fire, so they view politics as an existential struggle for power. They are good and virtuous and must defeat the evil on the other side. Things like the Constitution, values and precedents are for “losers”

But that’s not reality.   I will be the first to admit that liberalism has flaws which make it vulnerable to things like influx of immigrants who don’t share our values.

What conservatives wanted when we put our support behind Trump was that we need to make changes because liberalism has vulnerabilities that threaten Western Civilization…but that these changes need to come within the confines of our existing system of a Constitutional Republic (not a Democracy) built on an underlying system of liberalism. In other words, let’s improve the system because it’s a system worth preserving

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“We’re All Socialists Now” — Rise Of The True Uniparty

     One of the many refrains of the nouveau (purported) “Right” is that the conservative movement and/or GOP were the “surrender caucus” who pretended to opposed the march of the Left, but then happily joined in when it became a fait accompli. Ironic, then, that those nay-sayers are by and large embracing the socialism and welfare state of the Left. Such is the case with the desire to turn poor married couples with children into a new welfare class, dependent on the “Right”-lead government for their largess.

     To these people, an all powerful welfare state that empowers the government to shape society according to the dictates of the enlightened elite was not the problem, only that they weren’t the elite who get to mould society according to their ideal. They have fully accepted that socialism is here, but that it ceases to be socialism under their leadership and their vision of society-to-be.

     As Ronald Reagan would say, this isn’t a choice—it’s an echo.

     The mistake mad is the assumption that government must be a tool to impose someone’s idea of morality and what is the “common good”, and if you don’t impose it on others, then others will impose it on you.

     Limited government exists to restrain this false dilemma fallacy.

     The only “choice” is what cog in which machine they’d prefer to submit to.   Either which way, Leviathan calls.   That society and the economy should be moulded to some fantasy “common good”, “justice”, or some other trite slogan is considered a given, with only the specific superficial form in question.   But when it comes to promising free stuff and an uplifted society, it’s Johnny-come-lately vs. the entrenched faction. Or, to put it another way, it’s the “Diet Coke of socialism”. Slapping on a superfiscially moral paintjob doesn’t change the collapsing wreck beneath.

     The two are no more on different ends of a spectrum than a horseshoe bent to the point of making a circle. It is the same type of difference between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Hitlerites and Strasserite, or the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea.

     To double down on the socialism, President Trump has promiseddividends” of $5000 be paid to Americans from a source that doesn’t involve the taxpayers (perhaps in the form of Monopoly Money).

     In both cases, fallacious assumptions are made, including: Individuals can not rule themselves, but some who are “more equal” can rule the rest; society can be remade/fixed/transformed into a permanent good by imposing the desired outer form; that imposing the preferred superficiality will transform the people according to the fantasy of the imposers; that such transformed people will become what the Soviet’s called “The New Soviet Man”; and that empowering government without limit, fetters, or the restraints that comprise our American heritage can not and will not backfire or empower their enemies.

Continue reading

Posted in Elections, Progressives | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

News of the Week (September 13th, 2026)

 

News of the Week for September 13th, 2026


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Quarter Century Ago Today – NEVER FORGET

     Twenty-five years ago today, America was attacked. Instead of focusing in on the political and legal shenanigans going on in politics, let us focus who never would have the luxury of political circuses.  Never forget the victims who died, and those who fought back.

     In Pace, Requiescat.

Posted in War & Terror | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Quick Takes – Meanwhile, At College: Decolonial Orientations; Normalizing Tides Of Erasure; Racial Quotas

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: Gotta think “critically”, dontchaknow, for praxis.

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     They are paying people to decolonize psychological oppression or something…

“The University of Rhode Island wants to hire a psychologist who will offer counseling and provide training “informed by multicultural, systemic, decolonial, and/or other orientations.”

“The Kingston public university wants someone with a background in ‘culturally resonant counseling,’ according to a job posting, which expired on May 6.

“Jennifer Mullan popularized the idea of decolonizing therapy. She says the therapy involves ‘bravely and earnestly confront[ing] the multi-generational impact of colonization on all of us.’

“Mullan says counselors should help patients ‘recenter a collective healing process for all indigenous peoples.’”

Continue reading

Posted in Education, Progressives | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Westphalian Sovereignty And Nationalism

     Redefining terms is nothing new for the Left, even when they masquerade as the Right. There are far fewer examples of this than “nationalism” as purported by “National Conservatives” and specifically a confused Yoram Hazony. Some additional thoughts on Hazony’s confusion later, but first, a disambiguation of the Hazony’s conflation between Westphalian-style sovereignty and nationalism by James Lindsay, quoted in full below due to Twitter’s/X’s embed limitations.

I want to address a sneaky bit of confusion that has been introduced into the lexicon and discourse by the National Conservatism movement, namely on the definition of “nationalism.”

The best I can tell without doing any kind of deep dive into the issue is that this widespread confusion can largely be attributed to Yoram Hazony and his book The Virtue of Nationalism and his National Conservatism movement.

Hazony defines nationalism by mixing two ideas, one of which is actually nationalism. They are two ideas, though, not one.

His primary definition for nationalism is as a belief that nations should be able to exist, have defined borders, be sovereign, have some expectation or entitlement to international non-interference, and to conduct their business between nations through treaties, diplomacy, and so on, perhaps including war. He holds that this is right and virtuous in ways in his book, as the title indicates. The problem is that this is not nationalism.

The other definition of nationalism, which he also defends as virtuous (indeed, more), is that the nation itself is a principal and central political object that unites a people through common culture, common language (probably), common land (again, probably), common historicity, common tradition, common futurity, etc., and in particular common religion as a backbone (which multiplies assumptions). That is, nationalism holds that the nation, as some such, is regarded as the principal object of political loyalty and legitimacy. This is the actual definition of nationalism, and you can read his argument on its virtues for yourself; I’m not here to litigate that in this post.

The first thing refers to something well defined and well understood that is related to nations, but that thing is Westphalian sovereignty. That Hazony grounds the concept in a far older idea of national form (Israel) and uses that older concept as the bridge that blends the two definitions is not particularly relevant to the fact that “nationalism” does not mean believing in Westphalian sovereignty. It is something different, not a first or second component of a compound definition.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , | Leave a comment

News of the Week (September 6th, 2026)

 

News of the Week for September 6th, 2026


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Leave a comment

Firing Line Friday: Terrorism: Viewed from Abroad

     In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.

     With the 25th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers, let us look back 40 years ago when William F. Buckley, Jr., Binyamin Netanyahu, and Claude de Kemoularia discussed terrorism and America’s response to it as viewed from abroad.

Continue reading

Posted in War & Terror | Tagged | Leave a comment