Choosing Not to Choose

Matthew Stewart has a post over at City Journal titled Multiculturalism, or Cultural Appropriation? in which he make a case that Progressives need to decide between one or the other. It looks at history and the facts and concludes

Another puzzling aspect of the cultural-appropriation focus is that it seems clearly to clash with another progressive imperative: the need to nurture multicultural appreciation. Multiculturalism has been a prominent cause among progressives for more than a generation, but today, admiration for other cultures apparently comes with a warning sign: look, but don’t adopt, lest you face accusations of “theft” or insensitivity.

Most reasonable people have no trouble understanding that to adopt an artifact or practice doesn’t diminish the culture from which it originates. “You can’t steal a culture,” as Columbia University linguist John McWhorter has observed. Cultural exchange is enriching, not impoverishing, and imitation remains, as in the old formulation, the sincerest form of flattery. It’s time for progressives to decide between embracing multiculturalism or policing “cultural appropriation.” They can’t have it both ways.

The Progressive position flies in the face of the logical principle that A is not not-A which our culture inherited from the ancient Greeks. But Progressives never let logic or the facts get in the way of their desire to be in control. O’Brien explained it this way—

‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.

‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’

‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’

And have you noticed that Progressives keep trying to change the meanings of words?

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Among the most basic of the liberal arts taught in the medieval universities were Logic and Rhetoric. Logic was taught so that one could structure one’s arguments properly, and rhetoric was taught so that one could expound them effectively. The members of Team Kimberlin seemed to have ditched school when those classes, or whatever was supposed to replace them, were taught. The TKPOTD from four years ago today deals with one example of The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s inability to organize a presentation and present it effectively.

* * * * *

By the beginning of the second day of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial, it was clear that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin had not adequately prepared his case.

TDPK’s opening statement rambled on and on. Eventually, our lawyer objected because of non-germane material:

BEGIN BENCH CONFERENCE

MR. OSTRONIC: I cut as much slack as I could on this one. This is just —
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m trying to lay the ground work for what’s happened, why these guys are involved.
THE COURT: But much of what you’re talking about is not in any way admissible into evidence.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I’m going to say that. I’m going to get this in evidence.
THE COURT: This is supposed to be a brief summary —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. All right, I’ll make it brief. I’ll make it brief.
THE COURT: This is — I sustain the objection to you talking about issues that have nothing to do with what you allege these men did to you.
MR. OSTRONIC: Thank you, your honor.

END BENCH CONFERENCE

A couple of minutes later the judge had to reel him in again.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Come here.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, this goes to the gist —

BEGIN BENCH CONFERENCE

THE COURT: Here’s the problem, you have claimed that you were defamed and shown in a false light, and you haven’t even talked about that.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m getting there right now.
THE COURT: You need to do that.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: I mean, if you’re going to do that, but —
MR. KIMBERLIN: But the whole thing is that they coached my wife to say something false —
THE COURT: Well, I understand that, but —
MR. KIMBERLIN: — and —
THE COURT: — none of that stuff is — how are you going to get that into evidence? That’s not — you’re not going to get that material into evidence.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh, I will. I mean —
THE COURT: It’s — you need to talk about what you allege they did to you.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: Apparently — in your papers, you claim that they were publishing —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yeah.
THE COURT: — material that wasn’t true.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Right, okay.
MR. OSTRONIC: Thank you.
MR. AKBAR: Your honor, thank you.
THE COURT: One second.
MR. OSTRONIC: Can you just remind us, your honor, that the conspiracy was thrown out, and all these other charges that he’s threatening us with?
THE COURT: Well, yeah. You can’t talk about the counts that were thrown out. Only that that’s left in this case, okay?

END BENCH CONFERENCE

MR. KIMBERLIN: So for the past year, my kids, my family, my wife, have been subject to a jihad, every —
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m a pedophile. Mr. Walker published this.
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: You asked me to show what they’ve done, your honor.
THE COURT: I didn’t ask you to do it. I told you —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: — what you should not be talking about.

So during the remainder of his opening statement, he was continually interrupted.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: It hurts my family.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, your honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: My daughter is a gifted —
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. This is an opening statement, sir, you are arguing.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: — criminal charges against me.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: — these personal attacks —
THE COURT: Sustained.

TDPK kept trying to talk about things that he would not be able to introduce into evidence because he had no evidence to support them. As the trial progressed he seem to become more frustrated with a judge would kept insisting that he operate within the court’s rules.

Watching him fail was almost worth the year spent dealing with his vexatious lawsuit. Almost, but not quite.

* * * * *

The Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit was TDPK’s lawfare high-water mark. It was his only case other than peace orders to come to trial, and like all of his peace orders, he lost. His subsequent LOLsuits never made it past motions to dismiss or summary judgment, and they failed because, even with all his practice, Kimberlin still hasn’t figured out how to plead a case,

Losing losers gotta lose.