Saturday, 11 November 2017

More on Moore

This post is a response to an article published by the Gateway Pundit on November 10, 2017 titled: “Report: Alabama Woman Claims Reporter Offered Her $1000s to Accuse Roy Moore of Sexual Abuse?”

The article reads:

“On Thursday the far left Washington Post accused Judge Moore of dating a 14 year-old girl in 1979. Judge Moore has denied the charges. A Navy veteran who served 22 years for his country and then served in the Secret Service claims a family friend who lives in Alabama told his wife that a Washington Post reporter “named Beth” approached her and offered her THOUSANDS to accuse Judge Roy Moore of inappropriate sexual advances! Of course this is HUGE news if true. The family friend reportedly has a picture of the reporter and contacted the Etowah county District Attorney.  They went to the local DA instead of the FBI because EVERYONE today knows the FBI and DOJ has been compromised and cannot be trusted. UPDATE: We have not been able to confirm these allegations by Doug Lewis.”

———

The story is not Roy Moore. The story isn’t even corrupt media. The story is how the egalitarian religion has ALREADY led to a populace so stupid, so movable, malleable, fickle and brainless, that it is almost irresistible to conclude that they DESERVE the totalitarianism and national wreckage they are being led into leap by leap. As long as people are relying on MSM to tell them what the world is, does, needs, wants and is going, they are USELESS. The Fathers never envisioned a system in which every moron had “a right” to vote. But even if that right exists (and why not for 3-year-olds as well, for that is the sophistication level of more than a few—if it’s a RIGHT, hey…), it was never conceived as one to be exercised by those being pandered to and bought off. Here’s a simple proposal: since it is an inescapable and obvious conflict of interest, make it in stone that no one receiving from the government (for which elections are being held) any money or benefit not explicitly being a return on their own prior investment, be permitted to vote. (Spare all the qualifications, at least spare me).

Look, Roy Moore ran for elective office in Alabama before—important office. How naive one must be to give credit to a story alleging to have predated his ENTIRE, highly controversial and high-profile career, when not a whisper was heard re: this sort of tripe. But now that he may be rightly expected to be Bam’s choice for Senator replacing Sessions, AND (most important), immediately after the successful trash spin on two Dem wins being equal to a massive rejection of Trump, they wish to strengthen traction and MAKE the fiction credible. Fact: in Virginia, the morons gave credence to totally wicked and vicious campaign portraying Gillespie and his supporters as POISED AND READY to murder all minority children by VEHICULAR homicide. I think the one who conceived, produced, approved and ran that slanderous evil should be fined and jailed. Where’s Charlottesville again? How many ways these dogs have found to lie, and how brainless of people to go for it with zero critical function!

One more item to finish the rant. If you’re looking for the key to understanding EVERYTHING we’ve been seeing for a year and more now, the single simple key that unravels every knot, that instantly renders believable every story and slimey action which we’ve thought to be “Unbelievable,” this is the key—Get this and hold it for it explains all ( on one or two levels): No one in the Demoncrapic Party—NONE, not a one—thought, believed, imagined Hillary would lose. Follow carefully: the endless activity we are witnessing, custom made for the American moron, and the ONLY spin available from most outlets, is NOT for the purpose of helping Demoncraps handle the loss!! No!! It is because Hillary could not accept the baton which would have allowed her to manage from the top keeping the lid on her depravity, her evil deeds, the Bahama-Clinton corruption machine, the betrayals the unprecedented corrupt activity and scandal to top every prior scandal–all the fluff and posturing and lying and confetti throwing is to HIDE the smell of Billary and their treason. That is it in a single nutshell. Therefore they are telling all birdbrains the anti-Trump train has left the station, better get on it. And tons will. Every one an idiot.

My point later will be, DV, the absolute urgency of keeping truth and principle ALWAYS in view, the very thing conservatives have become committed NOT to do. Instead, in the name of pragmatism they have not simply LOST every major moral battle of the last 50 years, but they have given all the keys to their enemies, in the process turning themselves into retarding agents—AT BEST.
This is NOT to despise or dismiss COMPROMISE in the political realm. Rather it is to insist that compromise be permitted to taste like what it is by holding principle even higher when reality says compromise is called for. “Already/not yet” has a substantial Christian history. It’s graspable. We can get it, live with it.

What we cannot abide is throwing PRINCIPLE under the bus, the very thing we have become so damned (word used carefully and intentionally used) adept at. Two low-level examples:

1) Ivanka continues pitching her pet proposal that can only further destabilize and punish what remains of the family by forcing all businesses to give X amount of leave–maternity, paternity, fraternity, sorority whatever– when and where the savior state says to give it. What she is demanding—if it is so beneficial to businesses, so self-evidently right and fair–why is it being advanced as a LAW? Much worse, it is framed as a RIGHT, one which will be enforced by federal powers, courts and prisons. Why is it being DISCUSSED pragmatically rather than as a matter which, on the surface, requires it to be immediately dismissed? How so? Well, apart from its having no claim to being under a delegated power, it can only be proposed on a premise which views ALL AMERICAN BUSINESSES as belonging to the State. Really, talk about farce! Her daddy gets rolled into the White House with a mandate to dismantle the hydra strangling us. She says, “Golly, gee, I also have an idea–let’s give it another head!”

2) Nationalization (aka Ownership) of the Health Industry. What really commends Ivanka as Dimwit of the Decade is that her proposal is made at precisely the time when THE HYDRA is busy at work, insuring that, instead of draining the swamp, ALL OUR LAWMAKERS are being drained of their energy while they figure ways to continue to drain our resources. In just ten years, nationalized health care went from being simply a plot which Hillary hoped (since the 90s) to use to convert America to pure Sanderism, into an unquestionable, teflon-coated, absolute, tinker-proof ENTITLEMENT. But all work–as in ALL—proceeded upon the BASIS of what Americans’ dujour sense of entitlement probably included. Result? Hahahaha.

Now what you mustn’t miss is that the SAME point could have been reached with Americans at least having HEARD once or twice what the actual problem was. But no. And I’m not suggesting that they’d have heard of it from the NY Times. Anybody would have done. But nobody did because nobody stayed on principled point—at least, no party did. But you see, here again, it is not the failure to achieve a legislative victory I’m lamenting, but our total failure to make KNOWN, much less clear, that it’s no use talking about retaining Obamacare unless tyranny is appealing. But it’s hard to stay on point when “the party” you look to to save us, itself knows not just what THE POINT is.

Wednesday, 8 November 2017

An Immodest Prescription for our White Rabbit Age

What do I mean by White Rabbit Age? I mean what Grace Slick meant when she sang about a place/time where “logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.” That’s as apt a description of the gliberal mind as might be offered. As such, it is the mind behind the modern American newspaper. What would an alternative paper, or a cured paper look like? Here’s some of what’s needed in an efficacious Rx .

We are looking for a newspaper with clear and clearly stated, fair, historically informed, sane and honorable principles and policies (and practices). A paper overseen by and staffed with gifted reporters/writers, who passionately LOVE America—her Founding Fathers and her foundational documents, including the explicit and implicit Christian cultural presuppositions evidenced therein—yet who are mature souls whose love is not blind, naive or chauvinistic.

Integrity has been absent from us and our news sources for decades. We earnestly desire that a periodical zealous simply to report news—content to leave what’s done thereafter with a truth-informed populace—begin publication asap, funded by wise conservative money under the control of wise men (and women) who recognize how neglect of this essential component (essential, yes, for any independent republic which would continue breathing free) has hastened our demise. Want of truth hastened, but the lies and manipulations standing in Truth’s place have spearheaded and directed that demise. The societal disintegration we witness is not simply aided by the false narratives in firm control of every major news purveyor today, but the want of TRUTH plainly spoken–and the lies promoted in truth’s place–must be recognized the chief means of prodding, guiding and accomplishing our destruction–as much as or more than any and all political activity. After all, if politicians have abandoned principles in favor of the latest opinion polls and focus groups, what ought we to expect when the ONLY shapers of those opinions are degenerate, statist devotees of tyranny? Haven’t the people been left long enough without a printed alternative?

The policies guiding such a new newspaper would include:

In addition to organizing the news by Local, Regional, National, International and the normal topics, the newspaper would further distinguish between NEW stories (as in, since the last edition, viz., yesterday/today) and older, i.e., continuing stories. Why? Because, as policy, EVERY item reported in the “new” news section would STRICTLY limit reporting to the FACTS (who, what, where, etc.), without opinion, speculation, prognostication, sermonization, or implication. No “connecting the dots” for us poor ignoramuses.

This, of course, constitutes as radical a change as one could imagine, but it is a change that would find a news source reporting NEWS to a constituency treated like FREE ADULTS who may be left to form their own opinions. This change makes for a stark contrast with the way mainstream media function today, no? Today, from the choice of material to its presentation and manipulation, “news” is completely commoditized, shaped, pared, puffed as needed, forced to serve a dishonest, despicable, gliberal, God-hating, America-despising anti-sanity agenda. NOTHING makes its way into today’s paper which has not been been chosen for its utility as, or bent so as to serve as, A WEAPON.

Just imagine how unbelievably refreshing it would be to sit down with a newspaper which has chosen NEWS for its news and disciplined itself to REPORT the same AS news. Somebody, please, find the money and start a paper committed to this prescription. Then I’ll begin saving for a recliner I can relax in to read. Otherwise we’ll all need prescriptions for tranquilizers if we plan to continue reading. So what’ll it be? Which way is that White Rabbit heading–toward Truth… or Prozac?

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Las Vegas and the Obvious

Everything I observe in this short piece belongs to this writer’s favorite category: The Obvious. Why is that my file-folder of choice? That, too, should be obvious.

Por exemple: It’s the easiest. No need for laborious research or meditation to prove sequential assertions. Dealing with “Duh”-stuff relieves you of the burden of anticipating, collecting, ranking and overcoming the MLOs (Most Likely Objections). Of course, new writers (or preachers) who wish to be believed must fix it in their minds that unconvinced readers/hearers can be pearls of great price—if they can tell you why/where your argument failed. A regular diet of OPHOs (other people’s honest opinions) will become your best laboratory. Just remember what the first five letters of ‘laboratory’ spell because those precious lessons do mean arduous work. But when all you’re doing is pointing out the obvious, you might even have time to write a good “So what?”

Ahh, the blessings of the obvious! No struggling for clarity, no worrying about adjectival sufficiency (enough to keep loonies from running off the deep end, but not so much that they weigh the piece down). Etcetera. Etcetera. All those etceteras—gone! Therefore, with your permission, let me relish this too-infrequently indulged exercise in observing what requires no special talent to observe.

For today’s instance we call upon Newsweek, which continues to be a reliable source of grievous violations of honesty and logic—often stupendously obvious in its defects. Yes, ever since their days in print, Newsweek has been known as “the trope’s best hope.” Now, by the grace of God, out of print and confined to the realm of 1s and 0s, they continue (apparently) to spend most waking moments proving to readers they are asleep, with a fractional reserve devoted to the (delusional) insistence that they are different from Time Magazine. Their motto—which all staff reporters are required to tattoo on a secret body part—is, “Above all: Predictability!” And are they ever good at it! Long ago it got so some readers could tell you what the cover story would be based solely on the date. The issue nearest December 25th would tell of “Christmas Traditions Tearing Families Apart.” Is springtime nearing? Count on a cover story about “New Evidence Proves Easter Never Happened,” with a subhead, “But why your family should continue to make believe it did.” With a record like theirs, I know you won’t flinch for disbelief when I tell you the Newsweek headline which headed my Smartnews (it is neither) app’s coverage of yesterday’s Las Vegas mass murder:

WHITE MEN HAVE COMMITTED MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN ANY OTHER GROUP

What is a thoughtful, considerate human being to say in response to a banner like that, coming, as it does, as the LEADING consideration of a “respected” news organ?

First, it is a fine reminder that thoughtful, considerate human beings must RESPOND—as in, INTERACT— when reading (or listening or, perish the thought, watching) the so-called news, rather than simply, passively imbibing or absorbing the claptrap they circulate. Like never before in Christian history, reading the news demands earnest, combative engagement.

Second, why continue any discussion or blaming-project dealing with “fake news”? Could contrivance reach any higher (or lower) than this? And don’t stop there. Think—really, earnestly think—what this tells you about the gliberal, progressive HEART. In the immediate aftermath of 59 human beings suddenly and horribly slaughtered, after 500+ suffer injury, story #1 from MSM—America’s storytellers—forgoes any semblance of reporting but instead unabashedly runs into EXPLOITING. These dogs imagined it their duty to mislead and/or manipulate their fellow Americans more deeply into a brain-damaged leftist worldview in which the answer to every ailment is the removal of white men from the chessboard. This self-serving representative of an unelected and unresponsive, yet controlling, societal entity, IMMEDIATELY turned its attention and resources to playing shill and provocateur in such a base and degraded manner, one is struck with wonder that no one at the rag died of embarrassment when the editor assigned the spin. Did no one challenge him/her/it with a, “That’s sick. You can’t be serious, boss”? Can you TRUST these garbagemen? (Apologies to those who handle garbage—you, I happily acknowledge, perform a real and valuable service and are therefore prized and most necessary.)

Third, quite apart from all else which might be said, the heading, as it reads, is untrue. “More than any other group.” If ever a line called for, “The jury will disregard what that shmuck just said,” this is it. More than non-handicapped bipeds? More than humans above the age of eighteen? In ten minutes a journalism freshman could recite thirty-seven “groupable” traits other than white and male which encompassed MORE shooters. So why? Why the LUST that drove them to get this slander into text? Obvious.

Fourth, let’s continue that “Why” line of inquiry just a tad. There is only one reason the mainstream media distort truth to fit their politicized packaging: It is to gain control. To increase THEIR power. It is obvious. It is a crucial part of their zero-sum power game. There is just so much power in the political realm. MSM seeks to get and keep more than its share by their daily stab at gerrymandering: they seek, with all their resources and all their skills and technologies, to redraw the lines of power so that more is REMOVED from the people, generally considered (say, as all citizens of the USA) and is then REDISTRIBUTED to a certain number of their DESIGNATED (victim) groups.

(We will keep to the side the idiocy of their supposition that the members of these groups will remain full of gratitude even after overdosing on entitlement juice.)

Obviously, they wish to drain white Christian men of all power. Who are their chosen groups, lined up to receive all that liberated power? Well, if you think for a moment, you’ll see the one feature shared by all their chosen beneficiaries is this: They looked to the State and revolution, not themselves, God or labor, to give them what they lust after. In this transaction, MSM is the Grand Enabler. And  they do this in the belief that they will ever hold the reins of the beasts they’ve set free. This, too, is obvious.

Many, many fail to see the game for what it is. But seriously, is it not obvious that gliberals with eight-bedroom mansions who have not invited illegal aliens to live in, say, three of those, are not plowing sincere love into their proclaimed love of illegal immigrants? Or maybe, about the same amount of love that Mary Jo Kopechne’s murderer (Ted Kennedy) had for women and their “rights.” The hypocrisy of the left is so thick, it couldn’t be cut with nuclear powered tools. Their activities must be interpreted, therefore, in terms of a real and discernible agenda. Each day they stand at the top of news-gathering machines. Why does NBC and ABC and CBS, etc., report the same events in the same assigned order of importance, every day? Because they TREAT the news to prepare it for a purpose—not the edification of a population, but for the redistribution of power, taken from the general population and deposited into their personal accounts. Of course, they may find that their perception of controllability proves defective, but they have many, many methods for cultivating loyalty. The two majors are: Pay Attention and Ignore. Obvious.

Last, critical reading is often enough to discover something was up the sleeve. At the beginning of the Las Vegas Newsweek article, we encountered the rather pathetic, blessedly brief, effort to make the headline credible. Here it is: ‘There’s a feeling of entitlement that white men have that black men don’t,’ criminologist James Alan Fox told The Washington Post in 2012.” I’m not kidding. That IS it. They are so arrogant and evil, they think all they need to do to justify that OUTRAGEOUS headline is get one “expert” voice speaking out of an unknown context FIVE years ago. But by the end of the article, it turns out even the writers recognized that, with 90% of murders committed by men, and 98% of all mass shootings committed by men, a country wherein whites are a significant majority (63%), makes it a technical sure bet that the headline could be defended—technically. But it becomes indefensible when you act like a reporter yourself and ask, “Why?” Why did they use a tragedy of such immense proportions to run such a headline. If you don’t know yet, I hope you soon know the answer. It is

Obvious.

One last note: SO WHAT?

For all the consciousness raising on the political left and right, for all the money being spent on political office and lobbying efforts of diverse kinds, in spite of everything Christians may be doing or wish they might do to serve our God and country, NO ONE is even talking about the most needful thing of all: replacing the voice which continues to mendaciously define reality day after day after day: the New York Times. That is the single greatest generator of evil in our lifetime. Their motto: All the news that misfits print. They excel at everything in journalism—except impartiality and truth telling. Are we going to be led to judgment without having even made the effort to do news right? It was once a noble profession. Seems to me it could be, should be—must be—again. It is the noble task of Mediator—positioned between what happens under God’s direction and how it is interpreted. Hasn’t the Devil had the job long enough? The answer is obvious. (The hot flashes of right-tilting coverage are, for the most part, puerile or jaundiced or amateurish or ill-spoken.) In all the prescriptions regarding, “What we should do now,” this, the most needful thing of all, is never mentioned. Replace the cancer distribution which is the NY Times with journalistic excellence and truth. Is that what’s needed? Obviously.

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Thursday, 3 October 2013

An Egalitarian Hat-trick + Exemplary Erudition from Harvard

 

The Schlissel Retort: 10.03.13

Keeping up with The Times.

An Egalitarian Hat-trick + Exemplary Erudition from Harvard

While we await the appearance of a news periodical determined to report news,  we’ll settle for catharsis via semi-occasional comments on “all the views the misfits print.”[1] 

1. It seems to me that an American newspaper ought to regard itself as honor bound, solemnly obliged to provide service to the American public. I know that’s a lot to ask of a paper unable because unwilling to learn. If the Times found a Venn diagram making plain that the rights of citizens belong solely to citizens, they’d think it must mean gay citizens . To grasp the dynamics of the reality gap, always bear in mind that

        a. There is no neutrality.

        b. All thoughts and their fruits are either for or against the true God.

        c. The spring of all human activity is religious conviction.

        d. Whether such conviction is true and beneficent or false and mischievous, it’s there.It is this a priori religious conviction which decides what is or is not evidence.

e. Christianity in our time and place has been displaced by anti-Christianity.

f. Anti-Christianity is Egalitarianism, exponentially strengthened through ties to an Enlightenment notion of human autonomy operating in a theater of impersonal Evolutionary predestination: Ethics, Epistemology and Ontology in all their apostate splendor.

f. The New York Times may claim a megachunk of credit for this revolution’s success.

If there is an obligation to the American public, I’d hold it necessarily includes information–both accurate and up-to-date–about known, sworn enemies of our nation who are determined and even now engaged in destroying it by any and all means, especially including vicious and sudden violence and destruction, randomly delivered in the name of their deity to any place associated with America, her people and/or beliefs. Such is the threat of Islam today. Yet in reporting on the terrorist attack of late September in Nairobi, it was eight paragraphs into the story before even the egal-ized, sanitized word “Islamist” appeared. An act of Muslim terror, in which an effort was made by the murderous punks to chase away shopping Muslims so as to confine the bloodshed  to “infidels,” even that is obscured in its actual character. I regard that as criminal and traitorous.  

Now it seems rather easy to distinguish such acts from the Times’ imaginary Islam which is so peaceful and gooshy-love-dumb. Simply give a standard denunciation space to the top 100 Muslim clerics after each violent act by their fellow Muslims. Give them the chance to DENOUNCE and condemn the terror. Why don’t we see such denials, routine in all civilized corridors? Three guesses. Make that two.

2. NYT readers are indoctrinated in the Egalitarian Catechism with no letup. Like the catechisms of the Reformation, positive assertions about what is true are nestled among refutations attacking known “error.”  As an elite, purified source of Egalitarian dogma, the Times earns its anti-Christian stripes, however, by keeping laser-guided sights set on all cardinal components of Christian truth, beginning with the belief that there is truth. Seemingly determined to match the Inquisition in zeal to stamp out “heresy,” the paper often–I mean often–resorts to a nameless magisterium, a mysterious authority or set of “doctors” who have supposedly established the Times’ version of “obvious,” leaving peons to simply obey and exercise a little implicit faith. You’ll see this in their ubiquitous “Scientists say…” allegation.

3. With the recent coronation of anti-Christianity, however, it has become de rigueur for the Times to write as if they, you and everybody else already and assuredly believes the truth of their Confession of Faith. Consider, for example, their front page notice of the leading national story. The headline: A Brawl Over Textbooks.” The text: “A Texas panel that reviews high school biology textbooks is stirring controversy because its members include creationists and climate skeptics.” Of course, for as long as I can remember, the Times has been actively at war with this same Texas panel, and for essentially the same reason–that it exhibits evidence of thought .  What is different is how light a burden it has become to get an “Amen” to their assumption that the panel is peppered with Neanderthals.

I would love sometime to shine a light on this propaganda technique, which could be called the “prevail by presupposing a shared faith” method. I mean, just think of the horror! Among those charged  with giving an imprimatur to Texas Religious State Instruction Manuals, you will find people who actually believe God created the world! But “climate skeptics” is more awkward. Do they mean there are panelists who don’t believe we have a climate? Uh, no. They mean there are people who question  the holy white-coated fathers and their conclusions about global warming and carbon foofs. Where, I ask, is Torquemada when you need him?

4. The September 29th front page feature story, above the fold, right, four columns wide with headline (Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll) and prominent photo, plus four cameo photos of deceased children. The problem: There is not even an effort to pretend that this “story” is news. It is pure advocacy, editorial masquerading as news, and in the process, avoiding every meaningful question which failed the test of serving their agenda.

On this topic, consider: Of the issues resolutely and invariably described as “rights issues” by the New York Times, none have a vintage older than my generation. No story touching abortion fails to mention abortion “rights,” none about homos fails to mention “homo-” or “homo marriage rights,” etc. The only subject with a rights pedigree, however, one stretching back 240 years to our nation’s founding, is gun rights, but it is the single issue never presented under that heading. This is reporting? It is editorial and disease on every page. It is never reporting.

5. Not House Republicans but NYT policymakers are insane. The terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya, oozed facts proving one remarkable, unavoidable conclusion: It was the armed CITIZENS–members of gun clubs, retired and off-duty officers, ex-army, and Plain Joe Does who, armed and brave, went INTO harm’s way and effected the actual END of the crisis, risking their lives separately and together. It is an AMAZING testament to the truth concerning armed citizens, especially in perilous times. It was Founding Fathers’ Wisdom on display, thus guaranteeing it would be ignored (the Times and woman punish the same way). How did the Times spin it? The Kenyan federal government failed, not, the Kenyan people succeeded!  All attention OFF truth and armed citizens to the rescue. The goal of such jaundiced coverage is tyranny–for our own good, of course.

6. The hat-trick. The wife of mayoral hopeful de Blasio has created orgasmic seizures at the paper. In a salute with the tone of a junior high-school tribute to, uh, Lady Kaka, the praise gushes for this woman who was once “a smoldering teenager who took to writing poems everyday to wrestle with her isolation and anger.” Picked by them to be a darling and a spokesman they are determined to use as leverage for their candidate, we have in Mrs. de Blasio a woman, to hear them tell it, who is the incarnate egalitarian “victim” supreme, the Colored Krishna walking among us to save. How perfect is she? Oh my, you’ll be sorry you asked. She is a “onetime student of powerlessness, a woman whose early identity was profoundly shaped by feelings of alienation [here come the pucks]–because of her race, her gender and her evolving sexuality…” How great she art. I admit to being clueless as to the meaning of #3; after all, she is the wife of a male candidate for mayor. What are they saying? Does he know that her sexuality is evolving? I shudder to think. But who needs reality or accuracy when maudlin is available. Again, front page. Her only flaw? Her hubby is vanilla white. Apparently his being “an avowedly activist, tax-the-rich liberal” has secured the indulgence necessary to wipe even that stain from the (paper of) record.

7. Last place goes to the sinking flagship for its amazing helpfulness, offered in an  October 2nd  piece that was actually news. Sort of. The Supremes have decided to hear the case of a man challenging limits on direct contributions to candidates of his choice. Apparently alarmed at the wafting scent of liberty, joined to the litigant’s self-description as a conservative, the Times brought in a heavy hitter, a top expert to help us morons understand the threat facing us (the thing they are unable to do when it involves maniacal Muslim murderers). I ask you to bow your head in a moment of non-contemplative silence to prepare yourself for the full impact this quote will make on your psyche. Ready: Here it is, from no less a knowledge-macher than “Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who was solicitor general in the second Reagan administration” (see how unbiased? Trust us! A Reagan maven!) Ready? This is heavy:

“Without aggregate contribution limits, the amount of money that a contributor can hope to direct to a given candidate is virtually limitless.”

You get it? Without limits on the amounts you can give, the amount you can give is limitless. Wow.

Well, that’s what he should have concluded. By hedging with the “virtually,” he turned what was oh-so-close to being just another meaningless articulation of a self-evident truth into just another stupid error. “Professor sir, if an amount is without limits, the amount is actually, not virtually, limitless.” But someone will suggest the “virtually” referred to a donor’s resources. Sorry, no exit. His predicate was not an individual’s income or resources, but limits imposed by law. The prof and The paper join to teach the world to sing in perfect tautology.[2] 

But he’s from Harvard. And don’t you forget it.

 


[1] No pedantry intended. If you are not familiar with the boxed-boast in the top-left corner of every NYT front page, it reads, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Like my friend John Hultink says, “Yeah, right.”

[2] Tautology: a statement which conveys no useful information whatsoever, regardless of its length or polysyllabic glory.