A Romney vote means rich, white San Franciscans can’t exercise in their home gyms

Hotair/Sfgate.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | Mary Katharine Ham

[chessplayer]

Get this: the presidential race is so close that rich, white San Franciscans are having trouble exercising in their home gyms or getting proper sleep at night. Take, for instance, the story of Obama campaign volunteer Kay Edelman:

For the past several weeks, the 60-year-old San Francisco resident has frequently bolted awake in the middle of the night, in “a panic attack,” she said. She darts for her computer and checks the latest polls. Some days she’s so distraught that she can’t exercise.

Every morning, she gets e-mails from friends who’ve been just as sleepless. Most are so tense, they can croak out only a few words. “Very anxious.” “Worried.”

“Nothing more needs to be said,” said Edelman, a retired educational administrator.

I’m certainly not immune to worry over the election or the fate of the country, but let me pose a question for stressed-out liberals. Why do you continue to vote to make the federal government and the leaders at its helm an ever-more present and powerful part of every part of our lives when you know there’s a chance every four years a guy you won’t like will be at the helm? If it’s going to stress you out this much who has the levers of power, perhaps you should work toward making the levers less powerful?

[Zeneta]

Thanks,

If you haven’t read this:

well,

Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

Book Description
Publication Date: June 1997
In this New York Times bestselling book, Robert H. Bork, our country’s most distinguished conservative scholar, offers a prophetic and unprecedented view of a culture in decline, a nation in such serious moral trouble that its very foundation is crumbling: a nation that slouches not towards the Bethlehem envisioned by the poet Yeats in 1919, but towards Gomorrah.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah is a penetrating, devastatingly insightful exposé of a country in crisis at the end of the millennium, where the rise of modern liberalism, which stresses the dual forces of radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification), has undermined our culture, our intellect, and our morality.

Robert H. Bork sounds a very sobering alarm. We can accept our fate and try to insulate ourselves from the effects of a degenerating culture, or we can choose to halt the beast, to oppose modern liberalism in every arena. In the view of Robert Bork, an understanding of our problem and the will to resist may be our only hope.

It’s a very tough read, but well worth it.

I also just found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it63-29VrXU

Viewing it now.

[TEXOKIE]

bump

[danielmryan]

Thanks for the recommendations: I'm loading the video right now.

[Right Brother]

I will say she’s kinda cute for a 60 year old neo-Fascist Regressive.

Cute? Did you actually look above the boob line? Yuck. And the boobs are fake.

[danielmryan]

Sorry, but the "case for censorship" sounds like trying to use all the King's horses and all the King's men to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

There are three dangers in that proposal, for conservatives, that need to be pointed out:

1. Should censorship for decency gain political traction, the liberals will become more hysterical and more credible. Instead of "the American Taliban" label being rot, it will become dangerously plausible to many. There'll be slippery-slope arguments all over the Internet at a rate faster than you can read them.
2. What of the liberals, particularly those in the popular arts, who decide to go along with it? How would you like a steady diet of propagandistic knock-offs of Seven Days In May and the "evil businessman of the week" - all of which carry the censor's imprimatur of decency? Like it or not, that's what's likely will happen. The government boys will love it, and the censor will be part of the government. The SPLC and their "domestic terrorist" line shows what happens when the government starts singing the liberals' tune. The liberals go out of their way to be co-operative.
3. A bureau of censorship is just one more institution to take over, to put the point obliquely.

I suggest thinking of ways that your aim be achieved outside of the government. Otherwise, you'll wind up in the same spot that that retired teacher finds herself in.

[Amberdawn]

Maybe. America used to have laws governing obscenity in all it’s forms until 40 or so years ago, and the country managed to survive.

[clearcarbon]

Could be serious. If they cannot exercise, San Francisco may slide into the ocean.

[danielmryan]

Maybe. America used to have laws governing obscenity in all it’s forms until 40 or so years ago, and the country managed to survive.

A point to mull over: Did America have dominant and self-perpetuating cliques in the popular arts who would have a huge score to settle if the law clamped down on them?

It's not that hard to guess what would happen:

1. A few Andres Serrano types get thrown under the bus.
2. Public statements from moguls pledge co-operation.
3. Orders come down from on high to get rid of any obscenities, which would be followed work-to-rule.
4. And then, grinding the axe. What better way to do so than to re-cast the so-called 'American Taliban' as evil bullies that are brought to heel? Or as the usual stock villains?

Television in the 1970s, pre-1977, had very little obscenity. You'd be wise to ask around about it did have.

Come to think of it, liberal bias in 1960s news wasn't stopped at all by those laws - nor by the Fairness Doctrine, either.

[MuttTheHoople]

Did you actually look above the boob line? No.

And the boobs are fake. Does it matter?

[lowbridge]

Bump

[HiTech RedNeck]

I said “use.” The GOP sets up such disastrous avenues for ruthless Democrat control in part because it never imagines anyone but itself using those avenues.

[GraceG]

Free Speech can be used in the “informal war against filthy words”. It used to be that you could call a pornographer a filth peddler and you didn’t have to worry about the SPLC calling you this-phobic of a that-phobic...

Restore free speech and end “Politikal Korrectness” and make it socially acceptable to call filth filth.

[techcor]

perhaps you should work toward making the levers less powerful

No kidding! I try to make that point to idiot liberals. They brag about "speaking truth to power". Then what do they do? Try to make that power even more powerful. But it goes right over their heads.

[Ohioan]

The article focuses on some very neurotic San Franciscoans. But what needs to be recognized is that the Left, save only for some of the demagogues, who exploit the "useful idiots," are all compulsion driven--neurotic fantasy seekers. See Compassion Or Compulsion. You will almost never find one, who is able to ground his argument on anything demonstrably true.

This sleepless "hand-wringing," being described, is only one of a vast array of symptoms.

For laughs, ask one of the dear souls to explain why Obama is important to them? You will find only confirmation of my hypothesis.

William Flax

[danielmryan]

Free Speech can be used in the “informal war against filthy words”. It used to be that you could call a pornographer a filth peddler and you didn’t have to worry about the SPLC calling you this-phobic of a that-phobic...

Good point! Sure it can - and the First Amendment does protect your right to call it as you see it.

When I was writing my warnings above, I actually had the SPLC in the back of my mind. Thankfully, that organization can only smear as of now: it has no legal instruments (that I'm aware of) to punish frankness through the government. But given how they've been acting, they wouldn't hesitate to "advise" any Ministry of Decency.