The Dennis Prager column is most interesting, but I think it erred in suggesting that big busines has no conservative values, if that is taken to be a condition that has always existed. I think there is a good deal of evidence that fifty years ago those running big business did, usually, have such values.

Mr. Auster wrote:

“It occurs to me that if the Republican party (or some new conservative party that might arise) understood the meaning of these facts and formed a politics around them, the Democrats as currently constituted would never win another national or congressional election in this country.”

Sadly I think Mr. Auster is overly optimistic here. At least as far as sex/soft porn use in public domain is concerned a significant proportion of otherwise normal people are on the side of NYT. That’s why Howard Stern has tens of millions of blue-collar fans.

Gotta’ agree with Mik. Even if there are significant swaths of voters now that would be upset by this ad, their children (raised by MTV) wouldn’t be. Soon it will be the latter who decides elections.

Mr. Levine wrote:

“The Dennis Prager column is most interesting, but I think it erred in suggesting that big busines has no conservative values, if that is taken to be a condition that has always existed.”

I think Prager’s point is the big biz is not a person and cannot have moral values. Business is an arragement for a group of people to do certain function, usually to make money. As such it may have more in common with credit card account, road rules or medical licensing - set of rules and arrangements to achieve a certain objective.

I think many troubles US conservatives are finding themselves in come from the fact that they, mistakenly, assign conservative motives to business.

Perhaps the misunderstood Hayek and others who argued that idea of businesses competing to satisfy customers is a positive human development. But I think Hayek arguments apply to result of interaction of many businesses and says nothing about behaviour of individual ones.

Rush Limbough exibits such bastardized understanding of Hayek. In his world business can do no wrong, only Liberals, Goverment and lazy Americans can.

My thought was that the Republicans could say:

“We oppose nude sex coming into your tv in regular network advertisements. We will pass regulations to stop this. The Democrats have no problem with nude sex on network tv. Even if they pretend to oppose it (just as, at their national convention, they pretended to care about national defense), the reality is that they don’t oppose it. They like it and their liberal ideological base likes it even more. We Republicans are the party of public decency. We are not prudes, we do not seek to eliminate all references to sex in entertainment and society. But there are boundaries that we will guard. The liberals and Democrats have made it clear that there are literally no boundaries that they would guard.”

Just as, with the war on terror, the Democrats’ palpable alienation from the most basic values of national defense spelled their defeat, I’m saying that the same thing could be true with regard to the issue of public decency.

Another thought. Just as Hillary has been situating herself as moderate on national defense, she could also situate herself as a moderate on the issue of public decency.

Something to remember is that there are a great many Americans who are neutral about moral questions. They no longer believe one is allowed to express a non-liberal opinion about such matters in public. Maybe they do not support abortion on demand or marrying homosexuals or easy availability of pornography, but they have been conditioned to believe that strongly opposing these things is “judgmental” and in bad taste, even, y’know, like, kinda … weird. So they do not oppose them. The cultural self-censorship encouraged by the constant Leftist preaching of faux-tolerance and “inclusiveness” from our media is very effective. As time passes, what the cultural pornographers of the mass media purvey comes to seem normal, because most people will not protest too strenuously for fear of being narrow-minded and square. The perverse becomes the new norm. Once a perversity becomes “normal,” to oppose it courts accusations of bigotry or worse.

As for big businesses, as entities rather than people they are amoral. To the extent they take on a moral coloring, it is in response to the whims of the feds who are their primary regulators. That is why American big business is so determinedly politically correct. Affirmative action, diversity and multicultural propaganda are wasteful and divisive, but not as expensive or frightening as the prospect of fighting the feds in court. Besides, pushing this nonsense allows the very wealthy people who run American corporations to feel good about themselves.

Would that the Republicans took a stand of the sort Mr. Auster calls for. I think it is very unlikely because most of the powers in the Republican Party (and, more importantly, those who pay for them) are thoroughly establishment and don’t want to be thought of as “white-bread” censorious prudes. The GOP’s operatives have already calibrated the party machine to make the minimum socially conservative gestures needed to keep the Christian Right weirdos pulling their lever, and no more. For the GOP establishment to say what Mr. Auster would like them to would be less hypocritical than for Democrats, but hypocritical nonetheless.

Senator Clinton would be brilliant to make security and values her issues, although that would be monumental hypocrisy. I’m reminded of a joke I heard from a fighter squadron mate who was married to a stewardess from Little Rock: “Q. What do Bill and Hillary Clinton say to each other just before they have sex? A. See you back here in an hour.” I first heard it in 1986! HRS

I didn’t think much of Hillary before 2000. Since then I was reasonably impressed by her intelligence and political savy.

I always thought that it will take a Hispanic American or an African American or a very liberal and popular Democrat to shine the light on OpenBorder rats. Hillary certainly qualifies and, it appears, is making tentative moves:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000870.htm

If she continues to do so, it will be the best news to come from this dismal election season.

I wasn’t speaking to the likelihood of the GOP adopting my idea, just saying that if they did so, they could win.

Mr. Sutherland thinks it’s not a winning idea, based on a kind of “unprincipled exception” analysis: people may not like nude sex scenes on television now, but they have no principled opposition to it, so as time passes they will keep accepting more and more porno-type content on tv, and if the GOP tried to take a stand on this, the people wouldn’t support them.

I would suggest however, the there are limits to what people will accept. I may be wrong, but I don’t think the majority of Americans will ever accept nude sex scenes in tv commercials. Even though the opposition to such scenes is not based on principle, I think it is reasonably firm. Therefore, it would mark a red line where the GOP could say, “You shall not go there,” and the Democrats reply, “Why not?” and the GOP answers that this shows that the Dems are moral anarchists out to destroy the last vestiges of public decency in America.

Another aspect of the Monday Night Football commercial that I found to be offensive was that Ms.Sheridan was wearing a Christian Cross necklace. This purely gratuitous disparagement of Christian symbols is also found in all types of films today. It is very disconcerting to see, especially when it turns up in movies with a youthful target audience. For example, a number of years ago I was watching the PG-rated movie, Big, with my young son of about ten or so. The manchild character played by Tom Hanks checks into a hotel and is harassed by a cretin of a clerk whose first utterance is a loud belch. For no character-related reason this clerk is wearing a crucifix. Sad and shameful stuff.

Interesting that while Prager ever-so-briefly touches on race (and dismisses it), no one on VFR felt inclined to point out that 30 years ago the racial aspect alone would have had a much more innocent scene scotched.

Also, the heading of this post is intriguingly ambiguous: “If the GOP pointed out how left the Democrats are, they would be finished”.
Who would be finished, the GOP or the Democrats?

I’m not picking on the grammar, just stating that I, for one, do not have a quick answer to this question.

I thought I handled the ambiguity by saying “GOP” (singular) instead of “Repubicans” (plural). But now I realize that that doesn’t do it, because one might still refer to the GOP as “they” rather than “it” so there could still be the question as to whether the GOP or the Democrats would be finished.

But the alternative reading still wouldn’t make sense. Why would pointing out the Dems’ leftism finish the GOP? I’ll answer my own question, based on a principle I’ve enunciated in the past: In liberal society, the more objectively bad a thing is, the more you must lie to cover it up, because if you speak the awful truth about it, _YOU_ will be blamed for sounding extreme.

That applies here. If the GOP spoke the truly awful truth about the Dems, that would make the GOP sound like extremists, and the GOP would be finished.

The commercial was awful to be sure. It was profane and blatantly racist (because it depicted a naked white woman enthralled with a dressed black man). This is not a dreamworld we live in but the here and now. White people, and God knows how many black people (including Denzel Washington), cannot endure images of white women and black men. So the image was an attempt to shock, to punch white people, who don’t accept liberal dogma much as Michael Moore attempts to do with his propaganda on another score.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that race-mixing and miscegenation, with whites in a submissive role making all the concessions, are pet causes of the media mavens. I sense they believe they are on the verge of a breakthrough in public acceptance, because just in my limited TV-watching I am seeing far more ads and show trailers showing mixed-race romance and implied sex. This builds on the now long-standing pattern in media portrayals of characters: wisdom figures are typically black women, avuncular Morgan Freeman-like black men, holocaust survivors or angelic “Latina” earth-mothers, while the forces of evil are … you know who.

I used to think that all of this was just the liberalism of media types playing itself out and that it was not coordinated. Conspiracy theories make me uneasy. The blatant and subliminal messages are so uniform across the various media companies and so overwhelming in their presentation of counterfactual stereotypes that I have to wonder whether this social conditioning is not somehow coordinated, although likely very informally.

Mr. Auster, in his 0414 post, says something that has worried me in the specific context of immigration and the proposed Bush amnesty. Most people don’t think about it much, and don’t realize how radical it is. In telling the truth about it, we risk sounding like alarmist wackos to those who don’t know any better. The risk is that we censor ourselves to stay “credible” and the full story is suppressed. HRS

I’m sure it’s been said, but I’ll say it again: It seems no one has a problem with the half-naked cheerleaders on the sidelines throughout the game, or the neverending beer or male enhancement commercials that we are bombarded with throughout the broadcast. But GOD FORBID, we should see a WHITE woman jump into a BLACK man’s arms!

I am more upset by the fact that he’d let his team down for a romp with this washed-up fake blonde bimbo…… what a terrible message to send to our chirren.

I’m not sure where the poster named “Special K” is coming from, but I agree with his underlying point. The media are filled with staggering offenses which everyone accepts as a matter of course, and then one thing happens that goes “too far” and it becomes a scandal.

Television has become such a nihilist cesspool that I virtually don’t watch it any more. I was only commenting on this ad at third hand. If I had seen the whole program, I probably would have said something like what “Special K” did.

Following up on Mr. Sutherland’s remarks on miscegenation being in vogue, I started thinking about this following Mr. Auster’s comment of 10/3/2004 (which see — http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001772.html#9384 )

He stated in particular that, “Children of such marriages have no identity at all, whether majority or minority … The more intermarriages there are, the harder it becomes to maintain any historic majority culture and national identity.”

Taking this point further, I would suggest that children of mixed ethnicity are more amenable to considering themselves as “world citizens.” Since they cannot relate fully to one or the other nationality, especially as the two respective cultures may well be radically different and incompatible, they may seek an identity that transcends the original national distinctions in the hope of rendering them irrelevant and obviating the self-actuating confusion.

The more widespread miscegenation becomes, the more this result contributes to a consensus leading to globalism—political, religious, or what have you. So the glorification of interracial unions could be seen as part of the same tug pulling in that centripetal direction.

Since the pursuit of one-worldish goals seems to peculiarly require the dissolution of the West, and America in particular as the world’s superpower, it is no surprise that miscegenation is pushed here and not in non-white countries—the same as with massive non-white immigration into the West.

And consider too that while the effects of mass immigration could at least theoretically be reversed (by halting it, encouraging a net outflow of nonwhites, etc.) the effects of miscegenation referred to here are nearly irreversible. Since children of mixed unions are less likely to find acceptance in the respective non-white country (remember that non-whites typically oppose this—within their countries at least—more than whites who have loosened their mores on it) there’s really no place else for them to go. Their place here becomes permanent by default, with all that this portends.

This is certainly a consequence that should be considered.

Fairly recently I saw a latino comic remark that changes in immigration laws won’t matter, because everywhere you look someone is [expletive]-ing a latino.

There is a convergence among the various liberal programmes of infecund sexual hedonism, race envy, assertive religious indifferentism in the confrontation with Islam, and open borders. That convergence points directly to the suicide of the West.