Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Don't like what I write? Do me a favor - DON'T FREAKIN' READ IT! (aka: No crybabies!)
There most certainly is a right to offend (it's called the First Amendment). And this guy most certainly offends:
Now, most of this is nonsense (the guy even admits he exaggerates for effect).
For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions.
Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore's fat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.
When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.
As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.
The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.
That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.
Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.
A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union. Is there, after all, any human organization in existence (including a family or law firm) that may not disown, disinherit, ostracize, alienate or expel diabolical members? Whether the nation is purged of these 12 states via the Constitution or statute, the process of elimination must begin now, for the need of societal detoxification has waxed so overwhelmingly clear.
Examine the "Mostly Mainstream 38" and "Fringe 12." Of the 50 states, Bush won 30 in the 2000 presidential election against Gore, and 31 in 2004 against Kerry. More dramatic is the huge disparity among counties. Of 3,112 counties nationwide, Bush in 2000, for example, won 2,434, a crushing 78% majority. (In the counties composing "Bush USA" live approximately 150 million persons; in the 678 of "Gore/Kerry USA," 140 million.) Gore/Kerry denizens are concentrated in the metropolises of the East and West Coasts and those big cities on the Great Lakes or Mississippi River. Other significant pockets of ultraliberal extremists may be found in intellectually incestuous college towns and pro-big-government state capitals, along the estranged and overwhelmed Mexican border, and in Dixie's welfare-addicted Cotton Belt.
The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry'sMarxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA--2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).
GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.
A downsized, post-expulsion United States still would be geographically big enough (and personally generous enough) to welcome millions of authentic refugees from the ousted former states, real Americans who crave lower taxes, smaller government, safer neighborhoods, more secure borders, greater moral leadership, and all the other aspects of a markedly better society-- one that spawns harmony, not cacophony; excellence, not dependence; justice, not histrionics; education, not brainwashing; enterprise, not welfare, and Godliness, not devilishness. As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh?
And a lot of it is truly offensive (this guy thinks it's a good thing that "BUSH USA [as he calls it] is predominantly white"? Me wonders if openly proposing this is the best way for the GOP, to which he presumably clings with both of his white, Christian hands, to increase its share of the African-American vote. Of course, this could be seen as the old "hoof-and-mouth disease solution" - if there isn't any hoof-and-mouth disease, you don't need a solution; if there aren't any African-American voters in your "country," you don't need to try to get them to vote for you.)
Anyway, better people than me have torn this tightass to the shreds he is so begging for (read Kos or Atrios or AMERICABlog or anyone else who has posted on it - most of the liberal bloggers have - where do you think I found it? I don't read Human Events Online!). Let's just agree that it's stupid and offensive.
And you know what? I don't care that it's stupid and offensive. Let him say whatever stupid and offensive thing he wants. I don't have to read it. I don't have to answer it. I don't even have to let it offend, annoy, anger, piss off, or in any way affect me.
Just as, he doesn't have to let himself be offended by anything I (or any other proud liberal) writes! See, that's the thing about a democracy: we can say anything we want. That does not mean that anyone else has to listen! And if they do, and if they hate what I write - tough. Grow up. Stop bitching. Unless I have the freedom to offend you, I don't really have freedom. And vice-versa.
That's not to say we should go around intentionally writing offensive stuff. It's one thing to take a stand that may, possibly, piss someone else off (or even to take a stand that you know will offend people), but which you sincerely believe and can articulate with your customary grace and skill. It's another to write fractious nonsense for the sole purpose of winding people up. Although the latter is certainly protected by the First Amendment, one doesn't have to do everything one has the right to do.
What is interesting is that the right-wing, which so decries "political correctness" and people claiming to be victims, has come up with its own hypersonic versions of both. What any objective observer would see as the normal give-and-take of political debate, Thompson pretends to see as "defamation." Basically, in his view, liberals are so demonic that we have no rights of any kind that he is obliged to respect. And we're the "spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions"? This is getting close to a violation of Godwin's Law.
In any case, this is just an absurd rant, almost an Escher-like inversion of reality. The guy objecting to defamation indulges in it to a degree that, if he actually named a real person instead of resorting to the strawman of "liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness", would be liable to a lawsuit for actual libel (oops, there go those liberal lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits again).
It's not really worth my time to take this guy apart. My only point is, if he's offended - too fuckin' bad. If you can't get angry, you're not really thinking about things. The obvious solution is to criticize the ideas you don't like, not throw a hissy fit.
Davecollege music scholarship
Davecollege music scholarship