I know that the "Sarcastic British Host" has become a staple of faux-intellecutalism here it the States: "American Idol", "The Weakest Link," etc.
But I think Piers Morgan has taken it it a step (or leap) back from witty sarcasm to simple verbal bludgeoning.
So many of the "Liberal" mindset look to Europe for inspiration: there's a strong Europhile tendency in liberalism.
Let's admit it: there's a lot to like in Europe. I've lived in Austria and Southern Germany. I think Salzburg is the most beautiful city on earth. The Oberammergau region is stunning. I love the people, the food, the ambiance. If you've been to Europe, you've got a place like that yourself.
But Piers Morgan?
When I watch Piers Morgan, I'm more inclined to think of the CSPAN coverage of the British House of Commons: full of "Boos" and raspberries. It looks like a parody of government, not government itself.
Now, I know that our own houses of representation have had their own share of poor behavior (something about a cane beating before the Civil War comes to mind...), but I think overall we've had, for the most part, a pretty good run of civil difference. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill are a good example.
But it seems that, with the onset of militant liberalism/progressivism in the past twenty years, we've lost that. Difference has become discord has become antipathy.
And that scares me. There's no room for debate in a world ruled by absolutes.
If Piers Morgan, with his name-calling, abuse, and lack of ability to listen to an opposing view point is the future of our country... if that's what a "Liberal" future looks like... you can keep it!
And, Piers... if you don't like American gun laws (or any other law), we're not making you stay.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Are You Sure You Support a Ban?
Assault Weapons... they're evil, right? No one needs them, right? Ban them, right!
Are you sure you want to go down that path?
First off - an Assault Weapon does not exist. It's a meaningless term. An "assault rifle" cannot be purchased in the United States without a stringent set of licensing and five digits worth of cash. An assault rifle is a fully automatic, mid-range cartridge rifle stemming from the STG44 of WWII.
An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle using part of the same operating system as the M-16 and M-4. It is NOT fully automatic. If you can't figure this part out, then I mock your "superior" education and research skills.
Second... and more important: a BAN? Really?
You might support a ban because you loathe guns. That's ok... I can accept you loathing guns.
But do you REALLY want a world where you can ban something just because you... or a group of people... dislike something?
Think of what could be banned:
Alcohol
Smoking
Speech
Patterns of Thought
SUVs
Twilight
Lord of the Rings
Homosexuality
Abortion
Video Games
Planking
The Duck Face
etc.
Face It... everything offends someone. If we start banning on the basis of dislike, where does that stop? This is not a slippery slope: there's a reason that restraints were built into the Constitution. Those reasons stem from the fact that, once a government starts reducing rights, it never stops.
Consider this: Every argument that can be made for banning guns could also be made for banning alcohol. But we tried that, and look how well that worked out.
Ah, you're saying - but guns are dangerous in a way that alcohol or SUVs are not!
Really? Statistically not so: more people are killed - by far -by the use or misuse of alcohol or SUVs than are ever killed by guns.
The presence of guns does not increase violence. Look at Switzerland.
Australia has imposed a total "assault weapons" ban. Their violent "gun crime" has gone up.
Mass shootings, by the way, started AFTER the first "assault weapons" ban was imposed. Lotta good that did, huh?
If you want to keep people in movie theaters and schools safe, lets look at what really works, not what satisfies one group's loathing.
Do you really want to push the Government further down the path of intrusiveness just to quell your own loathing? What happens when that Government comes after you?
I want the Government out of my bedroom, my communications, and my gun cabinet.
If you can't see the connection, you need to think it through.
We live, supposedly, in a country where we are free to do as we please, until our actions prove themselves as an identifiable threat to another person (my right to swing my fist ends at your nose... right?). If we start to infringe on those rights, before long all citizens will be subjects in straight-jackets, and no one will be swinging their arms at all.
Civil Rights exist in part because they keep the government subject to its citizens, not vice-versa. Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as the right to vote, speak your mind, assemble, or believe what you want.
If you believe in equal rights, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in women's rights, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in the right to vote, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in the right to pursue your own happiness, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in your right to think as you please, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in a free press, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe that you can make better decisions for yourself than your government can, you should oppose a gun ban.
IF YOU SUPPORT CIVIL RIGHTS... BE CONSISTENT, SUPPORT ALL OF THEM.
Are you sure you want to go down that path?
First off - an Assault Weapon does not exist. It's a meaningless term. An "assault rifle" cannot be purchased in the United States without a stringent set of licensing and five digits worth of cash. An assault rifle is a fully automatic, mid-range cartridge rifle stemming from the STG44 of WWII.
An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle using part of the same operating system as the M-16 and M-4. It is NOT fully automatic. If you can't figure this part out, then I mock your "superior" education and research skills.
Second... and more important: a BAN? Really?
You might support a ban because you loathe guns. That's ok... I can accept you loathing guns.
But do you REALLY want a world where you can ban something just because you... or a group of people... dislike something?
Think of what could be banned:
Alcohol
Smoking
Speech
Patterns of Thought
SUVs
Twilight
Lord of the Rings
Homosexuality
Abortion
Video Games
Planking
The Duck Face
etc.
Face It... everything offends someone. If we start banning on the basis of dislike, where does that stop? This is not a slippery slope: there's a reason that restraints were built into the Constitution. Those reasons stem from the fact that, once a government starts reducing rights, it never stops.
Consider this: Every argument that can be made for banning guns could also be made for banning alcohol. But we tried that, and look how well that worked out.
Ah, you're saying - but guns are dangerous in a way that alcohol or SUVs are not!
Really? Statistically not so: more people are killed - by far -by the use or misuse of alcohol or SUVs than are ever killed by guns.
The presence of guns does not increase violence. Look at Switzerland.
Australia has imposed a total "assault weapons" ban. Their violent "gun crime" has gone up.
Mass shootings, by the way, started AFTER the first "assault weapons" ban was imposed. Lotta good that did, huh?
If you want to keep people in movie theaters and schools safe, lets look at what really works, not what satisfies one group's loathing.
Do you really want to push the Government further down the path of intrusiveness just to quell your own loathing? What happens when that Government comes after you?
I want the Government out of my bedroom, my communications, and my gun cabinet.
If you can't see the connection, you need to think it through.
We live, supposedly, in a country where we are free to do as we please, until our actions prove themselves as an identifiable threat to another person (my right to swing my fist ends at your nose... right?). If we start to infringe on those rights, before long all citizens will be subjects in straight-jackets, and no one will be swinging their arms at all.
Civil Rights exist in part because they keep the government subject to its citizens, not vice-versa. Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as the right to vote, speak your mind, assemble, or believe what you want.
If you believe in equal rights, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in women's rights, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in the right to vote, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in the right to pursue your own happiness, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in your right to think as you please, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe in a free press, you should oppose a gun ban.
If you believe that you can make better decisions for yourself than your government can, you should oppose a gun ban.
IF YOU SUPPORT CIVIL RIGHTS... BE CONSISTENT, SUPPORT ALL OF THEM.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Liberal: Are you sad Obama got reelected?
Me: Yes I am.
Liberal: Why?
Me: Because I think it spells the end of good rock music.
Liberal: Of course you'd run your mouth off talking about welfare and health care and... wait, what did you say?
Me: I said I'm worried about rock music.
Liberal: Huh?
Me: I like rock music. I'm afraid that we're going to lose good music.
Liberal: I don't follow...
Me: Not surprising.
Liberal: *** confused silence ***
Me: Ok, I'll explain. I'm afraid that, by turning our back on capitalism, we're going to lose good rock music.
Liberal: huh?
Me: This election shows that many people think they deserve assistance from the government: health care, welfare, all that. It's not so much about going out and getting for themselves, as it is about someone else providing for us.
Liberal: WE SHOULD ALL DO OUR FAIR SHARE! SOME PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH!
Me: Oh...kay... I appreciate the your non-sequitur outburst. But we're talking about music, here:
If the government starts to supply a lot of things, who's going to suppport artists - like rock musicians?
Liberal: well, they could get some NEA help.
Me: Right! National Endowment for the Arts! And that's just the problem: can you imagine what Aerosmith would have been like if they'd been supported by the NEA? Or Jay-Z?
Liberal: hmmm....
Me: Look at societies where the government has sponsored all the art - societies like the Soviet Union or ancient Egypt. Ever noticed what the art looks like? It's all the same - and, after about five minutes, it's boring! You see one Soviet statue, you've seen them all.
Liberal: So, you're saying we're like Russia? And I like Egypt!
Me: I love ancient Egypt. But it's an accepted fact that the art is "highly stylised" -that's just a polite way of saying that it's all the same. And, yes, I'm saying that we're moving closer to Soviet Russia.
But there's more to it: look at times when art has been VERY creative and innovative. It comes when artists have a chance to work out their own careers: when they're able to gain profit, to choose their own customers, to insert their own imagination in their products.
I'm talking about times like the Renaissance, or, for rock music, the 60's. Let's face it, one of the great appeals of being a rock musician is the money and the girls (or boys, if you're female). It's profit. And that profit motive makes better, more innovative artists!
Liberal: huh...
Me: Did you know that some of our first documented expressions of vibrant individual artistic expression come from Athens, after the reforms of Peisistratus? We see vase-makers creating great art on their vases. One of them even signs it, and then adds the note that his competitor could not have done as good a job. Before this, vases tended to be boringly similar. Now... they're a medium where a person's imagination and excellence can be demonstrated. What changed? The vase-makers had a confidence in a real, profitable career: they had a profit motive.
Liberal: umm....
Me: Imagine what the radio would sound like if all rock music was funded by the NEA. What's going to happen when we shut down the "money and girls" (or boys!) motivation for rock artists. That scares me to death!
Liberal: ummm... well...
Me: So, yeah, I'm sad Obama won. I like the passion and innovation of rock music. That only comes when the artists can profit from their work. If we turn our back on that capitalism, I'm afraid we're going to end up with really boring music!
Me: Yes I am.
Liberal: Why?
Me: Because I think it spells the end of good rock music.
Liberal: Of course you'd run your mouth off talking about welfare and health care and... wait, what did you say?
Me: I said I'm worried about rock music.
Liberal: Huh?
Me: I like rock music. I'm afraid that we're going to lose good music.
Liberal: I don't follow...
Me: Not surprising.
Liberal: *** confused silence ***
Me: Ok, I'll explain. I'm afraid that, by turning our back on capitalism, we're going to lose good rock music.
Liberal: huh?
Me: This election shows that many people think they deserve assistance from the government: health care, welfare, all that. It's not so much about going out and getting for themselves, as it is about someone else providing for us.
Liberal: WE SHOULD ALL DO OUR FAIR SHARE! SOME PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH!
Me: Oh...kay... I appreciate the your non-sequitur outburst. But we're talking about music, here:
If the government starts to supply a lot of things, who's going to suppport artists - like rock musicians?
Liberal: well, they could get some NEA help.
Me: Right! National Endowment for the Arts! And that's just the problem: can you imagine what Aerosmith would have been like if they'd been supported by the NEA? Or Jay-Z?
Liberal: hmmm....
Me: Look at societies where the government has sponsored all the art - societies like the Soviet Union or ancient Egypt. Ever noticed what the art looks like? It's all the same - and, after about five minutes, it's boring! You see one Soviet statue, you've seen them all.
Liberal: So, you're saying we're like Russia? And I like Egypt!
Me: I love ancient Egypt. But it's an accepted fact that the art is "highly stylised" -that's just a polite way of saying that it's all the same. And, yes, I'm saying that we're moving closer to Soviet Russia.
But there's more to it: look at times when art has been VERY creative and innovative. It comes when artists have a chance to work out their own careers: when they're able to gain profit, to choose their own customers, to insert their own imagination in their products.
I'm talking about times like the Renaissance, or, for rock music, the 60's. Let's face it, one of the great appeals of being a rock musician is the money and the girls (or boys, if you're female). It's profit. And that profit motive makes better, more innovative artists!
Liberal: huh...
Me: Did you know that some of our first documented expressions of vibrant individual artistic expression come from Athens, after the reforms of Peisistratus? We see vase-makers creating great art on their vases. One of them even signs it, and then adds the note that his competitor could not have done as good a job. Before this, vases tended to be boringly similar. Now... they're a medium where a person's imagination and excellence can be demonstrated. What changed? The vase-makers had a confidence in a real, profitable career: they had a profit motive.
Liberal: umm....
Me: Imagine what the radio would sound like if all rock music was funded by the NEA. What's going to happen when we shut down the "money and girls" (or boys!) motivation for rock artists. That scares me to death!
Liberal: ummm... well...
Me: So, yeah, I'm sad Obama won. I like the passion and innovation of rock music. That only comes when the artists can profit from their work. If we turn our back on that capitalism, I'm afraid we're going to end up with really boring music!
I'm a conservative.
I think political conservatism in the framework of the Constitution of the United States is the best political option on the planet.
I think any honest-minded individual who examines the tenets of conservatism will embrace them.
If you're conservative - read on! Maybe it will give you something to read about.
If you're liberal (progressive, Democrat, Republican, Rino, etc.) - READ ON! I want to change your mind!
I think political conservatism in the framework of the Constitution of the United States is the best political option on the planet.
I think any honest-minded individual who examines the tenets of conservatism will embrace them.
If you're conservative - read on! Maybe it will give you something to read about.
If you're liberal (progressive, Democrat, Republican, Rino, etc.) - READ ON! I want to change your mind!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)