RSS

Category Archives: Language

Bitter Clingers

Robb discusses how the antis bitterly cling to their prejudice:

They hate us, and even worse, they hate their version of us which is generally a strawman of epic proportions. The problem is they cannot face reality where gun owners are women, minorities, or anything other than old, fat, white guys. They cling to that stereotype with a faith so pure and strong that it makes Billy Graham’s views look like atheism.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2013 in Crazy Left, Language, People, Religion

 

What difference, at this point, does it make?

It is clear that Secretary Clinton didn’t want to answer the question and it is clear that Senator Johnson wasn’t interested in her answer. The question, “What difference, at this point, does it make…?” is important in the verbal battle of “I’m not listening. I’M NOT LISTENING!”

Frankly, it matters, Madam Secretary, because the Obama Administration, of which you and Ambassador Rice are part, were more than happy to threaten liberty and freedom of speech rights rather than to confess their mistake.

Wait, you mean to tell me that a politician lied? In an election year?!

Re-election politics aside, subverting liberty while attempting to cover up your failure is not a valid excuse. This was not a defense of liberty. This was an attack on liberty.

Oh, and you let four American’s die.

 

The Once and Future Liberalism

Marko Kloos tweeted:

So, being a good little lad, I went and read it. In addition to being incredibly insightful, I happen to be studying systems theory in one of my classes this semester. This article fits. Like. A. Glove.

The author, Walter Mead, discusses liberalism and its four phases in American political and social life.

We can see this process at work in modern Anglo-American history, during which liberalism has gone through at least four distinct incarnations. Liberalism 1.0 was the political expression of the original Enlightenment philosophy that developed in Britain and shaped the Glorious Revolution of 1688. That Revolution remains the seminal political event in the history of the English-speaking world. The American Founding Fathers set out consciously to imitate the spirit of 1688. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights flow from the ideas of a revolution that once and for all made Parliament supreme over the Crown in British history.

But the Revolution of 1688 had its limits, and by 1776 liberalism 1.0 was no longer enough. In Britain, the corruption of the House of Commons allowed George III to reassert royal control; Americans realized that the constitutional monarchy of liberalism 1.0 was no longer ideal. The 2.0 liberalism of our Founding Fathers replaced constitutional monarchy with a republic expressly founded on natural rights and the sovereignty of the people. The 1.0 Revolution of 1688 had replaced an intolerant established Church with one constitutionally more tolerant; the 2.0 American Revolution of 1776 separated the church from the state to the benefit of both.

Liberalism 2.0, as developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, was rooted in the thought of 1.0 liberals like John Locke. But Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington developed and put into practice a set of ideas about how individual liberty could be reconciled with economic development and good governance. Note how the names changed. In 1688, if you supported the Glorious Revolution you were a Whig and a liberal. In 1776, if you supported those same principles against the Declaration of Independence you were a Tory conservative.

He goes on to describe liberalism in America and its various strengths and weaknesses. He describes modern liberalism as blue liberalism, or liberalism 4.1.  He also discusses how we are at the end of an era and in a position to create liberalism 5.0

As with earlier versions, liberalism 5.0 must build on the best of what has gone before while making adjustments—radical when necessary, though never gratuitously so—to existing beliefs and institutions. 5.0 liberals must challenge the right of blue liberals to own the L-word, seeking both to convince 4.1 liberals to come back to the future and denouncing those who won’t as the blinkered reactionaries and speed bumps they are.

Go read this article.

 
 

The Truth About Assault Weapons

My brother-in-law just sent me this link. Regardless of your position on firearms, education about the topic is important. Go. Read.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 18, 2013 in Education, Guns, Language

 

NYT seeing the light on “Assault Rifles?”

Maybe.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 18, 2013 in Guns, Language

 

Quote of the Day

From Say UncleI don’t “need” my AR any more than Rosa Parks “needed” to sit in the front of that bus

 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 18, 2013 in Civil Liberties, Language

 

Safe vs. Dangerous

I’m shamelessly stealing this:

Safe-Danger

 
 
%d bloggers like this: