Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Great points from David Bernstein writing in Cato about the DC v. Heller decision and what it means.
Liberalism is most dizzying when you try to take it seriously.
The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms, should finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberal and conservative justices is that the former support “individual rights” and “civil liberties,” while the latter routinely defer to government assertions of authority. The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides.
Liberal justices uphold individual rights and civil liberties, huh? I have heard that before, but I didn’t know they were trying to stick to that one.
They don’t stick to much of anything.
Conservative: Okay, liberal fellow judge, here’s something we have to decide. We have to figure out if we’re going to execute this guy for murdering a little girl. I presume since you’re all about individual rights and civil liberties you’ll be in favor of signing the death warrant with me…
Liberal: No!
Conservative: No?
Liberal: No, absolutely not! I’m here to safeguard the individual rights and civil liberties of that creepy guy, just as much as the little girl.
Conservative: Point taken, but they’re both human beings…and she was innocent, whereas not only is he guilty but he could kill again.
Liberal: Yeah but you don’t know that for sure. Anyway, the little girl’s civil liberties cannot be protected because she’s already dead. We have to concentrate on the living. Even though the manner in which she was removed from the living is unjust, it’s in the past and we can’t do anything about that.
Conservative: Okay, that’s interesting. So the girl was unfairly murdered, but one way or the other she’s no longer alive and therefore beyond our purview as we act to protect the civil liberties of living persons.
Liberal: Precisely.
Conservative: Alright, our next case concerns a homeowner who gunned down a burglar. The burglar is dead, so going by your logic of safeguarding civil liberties for the living, I guess you’ll be joining me in letting the homeowner off the hook.
Liberal: Nonsense! He needs to be punished for his crime!
Conservative: He does?
Liberal: Yes. I mean of course the burglar is dead, but he still has civil liberties that need protecting. It’s all about the rest of us. We need to preserve a system of law and order.
Conservative: So liberalism is all about civil liberties…only for the living though…and preserving law and order.
Liberal: Now you’re getting it. Liberalism is completely consistent, it’s about individual rights for the living and respecting the law, and conservatism is about suspending individual rights for everyone, and anarchy and chaos.
Conservative: Okay, I think I’m getting it. Now our third case for the morning concerns illegal aliens that are running across the border…since you’re all about law and order I guess you’ll be joining me in cracking down on that.
Liberal: What makes you think that?
And so it goes. Nailing down exactly what liberalism is, is just like nailing jello to a tree. There’s no rhyme or reason to it, no consistency. The definitions liberals themselves offer, only make sense so long as you are expected to pay attention to those definitions. They do not endure across multiple issues.
But this definition does…
See, it isn’t tough at all to come up with a definition for liberalism that makes sense and adheres satisfactorily to fact and truth. All you have to do is think for yourself, and stop listening to liberals. They, after all, are the ones who can’t afford to have liberalism recognized for what it really is.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Brilliant!
The dialogue, I mean. Pegs it.
- philmon | 07/03/2008 @ 12:35