“In a free society, the ‘vision thing’ is left to private individuals; civil servants are kept on a tight leash, because a free people understands that a ‘visionary’ bureaucrat is a voracious one and that the grander the government the poorer and less free the people” (October 6, 2006).
From the fleshpots of Washington DC, the visionary top bureaucrat—the ponce in chief whose family’s tax-funded spending dwarfs that of the independently wealthy Windsors, making the British Royals appear frugal by comparison—has called on you for “shared sacrifice.” This fresh from a brief family vacation in Hawaii that cost his ungiving subjects $4 million.
More from Karen De Coster, who for once has gone soft on Slime, calling BHO a “repulsive piece of presidential sludge.”
You Know You’re a GUN CONTROL HYPOCRITE IF….
You consistently call a magazine a clip
You think an AR 15 is an assault rifle
You have armed security guards
You are in possession of an illegal magazine while arguing gun control on national television
Your kids have armed security guards
Your kids’ school has 11 armed security guards
You think a .223 is a military round
You think the thing that goes up is a barrel shroud
Your husband used to sell crack
Your husband raps about crack
When you hear the words “fast and furious,” you think, “Oh, great movie.”
You rule a country where a large part of the city from which you originated is a killing zone, even though no one is allowed to carry a firearm.
You’ve never held a gun.
You’ve never shot a gun
You’ve never read the Second Amendment and looked beyond the mere words on the paper. …
“If you’ve ever carried concealed, if you’re Piers Morgan, if you own a knife, if you live in a gated community—anyone in the “Demand a Plan” video—the first thing out of your mouth when you heard about the Sandy Hook shooting was gun control.”
You own a gun-free zone establishment.
You drafted an assault-weapon’s ban but you carry concealed.
You think the NRA is the KKK.
…If you’ve ever used a gun in a movie.
If you don’t know the difference between a high-capacity magazine and a standard capacity magazine
You think hollow-points are cop killer bullets.
You think there’s a gun-show loophole.
Everything you know about guns is from TV and movies. You think cops are expert gunmen.
[SNIP]
If you ask me, hypocrisy is too soft and imprecise a word for the detritus of humanity described by Brother “Noir.”
UPDATE I (12/31/012): LOTT LOSES. Piers Morgan refuses to allow guest John Lott to speak to the issue of statistical murder rates and gun ownership. But then Dr. Lott does not try to make a point, now does he? Meek and ineffectual is the word when it comes to to the so-called right and its defense of rights.
MORGAN: National handgun ban. And it was incredibly effective. Australia, the same thing.
Now, John Lott, your answer is more guns makes America safe, even though you look at the statistics, you have 300 million in circulation and you have the worst gun murder rate of any of the wealthy countries of the world by a massive multiple.
How do you justify the claim more guns makes more safe people in America? I don’t — don’t get it. JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AUTHOR, “MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME”: Every place that guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up. You cannot point to one place, whether it’s Chicago or whether it’s D.C. or whether it’s been England of whether it’s been Jamaica or Ireland… MORGAN: That’s a complete lie. LOTT: It is not! MORGAN: It’s a complete lie! MORGAN: The gun murder rate in Britain is 35 a year average! LOTT: Do you understand… MORGAN: You need to stop repeating a blatant lie about what happened in other countries! LOTT: Look, sir… MORGAN: Thirty-five gun murders a year… LOTT: You don’t — you… MORGAN: No, you’re not going to get away with this! LOTT: No! Just one… MORGAN: You lied about it the other day! LOTT: Sir…
MORGAN: Thirty-five gun murders a year in Britain, 11,000 to 12,000 in America! LOTT: You… MORGAN: Stop… LOTT: No! You don’t even understand simple math! MORGAN: What you say drives Americans… LOTT: Can I explain something… MORGAN: … to go and buy weapons… LOTT: Well, there’s a difference between… MORGAN: … to defend themselves! LOTT: … saying something’s low and that it increased. What I say is there’s lots of reasons why murder rates differ across countries. But when a ban is put on, it still may end up being lower than someplace else, but it went up!
What’s so difficult about quickly interjecting a word about the meaningless of absolute murder numbers, absent other demographic data such as total population, where crime is concentrated and clustered—its racial and urban vs. rural complexion, etc.
The equal opportunity idiocy on Piers Morgan continues. “The 2nd Amendment didn’t take into account assault weapons,” says purveyor of pop spirituality, DEEPAK CHOPRA.
When they passed the 2nd Amendment, they had muskets. It took 20 minutes to load one, and half the time, you missed, OK? The 2nd Amendment didn’t take into account assault weapons, the fact that you can buy them through the secondary market or you can load up on ammunition through the Internet.
So, by logical extension, should the 1st Amendment also be contingent on the extent to which technologies can be used to the detriment of some? During the Founding, I presume, there were no megaphones or loudspeakers. Is Chopra implying that as offensive speech got louder and more easily transmitted, the Founders would have reconsidered the right to free speech? Regulated the Internet? Is anyone suggesting that had the framers, some of whom were inverters, foreseen today’s technological innovations, they’d have written a different document?
Of course that’s what’s implied by a statist like Chopra, whose inspiration is eastern mambo-jumbo, not John Locke.
The Bill of Rights is a document of individual liberties, setting limits on government, not a document meant to recalibrate individual liberties in light of each era’s technological innovations.
UPDATE III (1/2/2013):Hollywood whores. When are you going to boycott their pathetic products?
More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).
What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.
But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.
Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.
You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.
Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.
On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”
There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”
A careful guardian of the English language Tom Wolfe is not. The infelicities of style and substance in the novelist’s latest book are summed up by Stephen Abell, in the Times Literary Supplement’s November 9, 2012 issue. Abell’s verdict about the door-stopper, Back to Blood: “While it is big, it is not particularly clever”:
…as we struggle through his fourth blockbuster, Back to Blood, we begin to reflect that size, in literature as in life, is not everything. We can at least confidently point to some of the products of Wolfe’s recent cramming …
… [Wolfe] direct[‘s] much of our attention beneath the sheets. Not that sex in Back to Blood goes on merely in the bedroom. In one ill-conceived set-piece, Norman and Magdalena attend a regatta, which becomes a floating orgy with pornography being displayed on the giant sails of some of the boats (complete with rather startling “labia majorae three times as big as the entrance to the Miami Convention Center”).
Sex unquestionably brings out some of the flaws in Wolfe’s prose. For example, its effortfully mimetic approach, where the writing enacts the sounds it is describing. This is from a superfluous trip to the “Honey Pot” (an unimaginative strip club), where Wolfe wants to leave us in no doubt about the pole-straddling gyrations of the woman on stage: “BEAT thung CROTCH thung TAIL thung CRACK thung PERI thung NEUM thung”. Or its obsession with transcribing sounds to needless effect (which creates sentences that make it look as if the author has fallen asleep against his keyboard): “unhh, ahhh ahhh, ooom-muh, ennngh ohhhhunh”. There is crass imagery (“his big generative jockey was inside her pelvic saddle”) and glib alliteration (“lascivious looks of men lifting the lust in the loins”). And there is the relentlessly anatomical categorization: “pectoral glories”, “mons pubis”, “their montes veneris”.
…The corollary is, needless to say, a simplistic attitude towards men, and manliness. Men in Back to Blood are judged by the quality of “not being a pussy”, and by their muscularity (an area where Wolfe has an almost fetishistic eye): …
… The notion of an anatomical approach is also crucial to understanding Wolfe’s writing style more generally. He is a founding father of what might called “List lit”, in which constituent aspects of life are broken down into a catalogue of parts. So, for example, when a character sits before a desk, we are immediately presented “with its Art Deco kidney shape, its gallery, its sharkskin writing surface, the delicately tapered shin guards on its legs, its ivory dentils running about the entire rim, its vertical strings of ivory running through the macassar ebony”.
At the basic level of sentence structure, this often means that Wolfe’s descriptions (and the descriptions are unquestionably his; they do not vary with the characters on whose perceptions they are apparently based) are filled with minor variation, as if he wishes to create an effect of mass multiplication simply by using near-synonyms: “they looked prissy, dinky, finicky, fussy, and gussied up”; “he could insult people to their faces, humiliate them, break their spirits . . . make them cry, sob, blubber, boohoo”.
The result is a novel which is bright and busy, and full of information rather than imagination.
