Anyone living in this country for the last 8+ years knows that when it comes to irrational anger and bizarre unremitting rage, the lefties have it all over the conservatives.
They are in Chevy Chase...and I’m not.
Nicely perceptive column by Will (is he one of them “intellectuals” we must necessarily ignore?).
Amazingly great article from the quaint RINO I love to hate..! All that he’s lacking is the butterfly tie....
Another characteristic of the Rights Talkers (Will’s term) is their strong love of every incarnation of “me” —I, myself, individually, etc.
Sometimes they will get sucked into a mysterious “me” vortex and use these words multiple times even in short clauses —doing so bolsters the legitimacy of their claim on something, they think, because to the liberal PASSION isn’t just important, but the alpha and the omega.
Another penchant is a love for the F Word: If something is important, conservatives try to keep this one from view, but liberals are the diametric opposite; it should be pushed front and center, with dazzling lights and spin-around rims.
10-15 years ago, first time in DC area, I had my wife and a van full of kids. We were going around (I believe) Chevy Chase circle at 45 or so with the locals, trying to locate one of a half-dozen streets leading off it.
I was navigating and told my wife, “This one!” It was the wrong one, and we hit a speed bump hidden in the shade. I thought we had all bought the farm with broken necks and snapped vertebrae. The coolers and luggage bounced off the ceiling of the van. Good thing we didn’t have the dog with us or he would have been smashed.
When we got our senses back and pulled into a driveway to turn around, an irate local started yelling at us for speeding on his street. It was hard to ignore him but that we did.
They decided to live there. No one made them do it.
The left is also angry because as unreason ages it becomes rage.
Honking while going over neighborhood speed bumps is a great idea.
btt
Rights talk is inherently aggressive, even imperial; it tends toward moral inflation and militates against accommodation. Rights talkers, with their inner monologues of preemptive resentments, work themselves into a simmering state of annoyed vigilance against any limits on their willfulness. To rights talkers, life -- always and everywhere -- is unbearably congested with insufferable people impertinently rights talking, and behaving...
UNlike liberals, let US be clear.
1. RIGHTS come from the requirements of man's nature as a choice-making rational being (in other words, from God), not the Constitution. The Constitution is just to designate the structure of the federal government, and as far as rights go, it is supposed to protect them, not grant them. Rights are innate in every human. If they are "granted" by a Constitution or any other act of human beings they are nothing more than revocable privileges. This is WHY we use the term "rights" rather than "permissions" and insist upon their distinction.
2. RIGHTS are expressions of LIBERTY, as claims of immunity from, and to distinguish them sharply from, any use of coercion. They are the recognition of every individual's independence, or ownership of his or her own life. Thus you have rights to assemble, move, work, play, speak, write, worship, etc. and make your OWN decisions about yourself. This is not to deny our social nature. Instead, it clarifies the fact that one's social contacts are to be chosen by or consented to, not forced upon, each individual.
3. In order to be a right, a condoning of liberty must be applicable to EVERYONE in the same sense at the same time. If it is not, it must be considered to be only a permission or a license, and cannot be construed to be a right.
4. In order to be a right, a condoning of liberty of one kind must not entail the violation of another kind. Your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins.
5. Whenever anyone postulates such a thing as anyone's "right" to health care (or any other goods or services, for that matter) then they are implicitly, if not explicity, postulating that coercion is involved BECAUSE THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS MUST BE VIOLATED TO FORCE THEM TO PROVIDE IT. BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT" TO VIOLATE RIGHTS.
PERIOD.
http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm
http://freedomkeys.com/teapartysigns.htm
But how do speed bumps relate to the outfield hills at Crosley Field and Minute Maid Park? Or even an odd bounce on a grounder up the middle hitting the mound?< /george will obligatory baseball reference>
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Wow, now I just got ideas about what to do when facing these damnable bumps.
Here are some other priceless gems of wordsmithing from the article:
Rights talk is inherently aggressive, even imperial; it tends toward moral inflation and militates against accommodation. Rights talkers, with their inner monologues of preemptive resentments, work themselves into a simmering state of annoyed vigilance against any limits on their willfulness. To rights talkers, life -- always and everywhere -- is unbearably congested with insufferable people impertinently rights talking, and behaving, the way you and I, of course, have a real right to....
Can't liberals play nicely together? Not, evidently, when they are bristling, like furious porcupines, with spiky rights that demand respect because the rights-bearers' dignity is implicated in them.