Sunday, April 17, 2005

In the last couple of days, I've run across things that have forced me to delay a couple of posts I've already written.

First, there was a story about a skate park that has been closed because it wasn't hadnicapped accesible. What? A gal in a wheelchair was going to skate? A blind guy was going to get on a skateboard and let his dog guide him through the tubes? No. Picnic tables in the park do not meet disability height requirements.

Second, in the TrekWeb forums, someone started a thread about how liberal Star Trek is. While I agree that Star Trek is liberal, a user named Gene's Ghost wrote:

True believers of any of the original Star Trek humanities as put forth by the late Gene Roddenberry simply are not conservatives, because those Trek concepts are very much about lifting all of humanity to fulfill their own human potential. Everyone has a fair chance to become who they want to be.

Conservatives are all about keeping people down just long enough to take advantage of their misfortune for not being part of the elite and empowered. They are not their brother's keepers, and will always refuse to be. Why? Because being part of a loving and generous humanity cuts into their bottom line... and that's just unacceptable.

My response was, "My only disagreement with your blanket, but more or less accurate, generalizations is that conservatives choose to be conservative. This, I assume, is a bad thing in your view, so the last sentence of the second paragraph should read, "Everyone has a fair chance to become who they want to be, as long as they aren't conservative." That's why I often find liberals just as elitist, opniionated, and bigoted as conservatives."

Today, I ran across Pat Sajak's blog. He complained that he's had to stop having political discussions, because liberals tend to create their own rules when it comes to those discussions. "The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)"

After that, I came across this article that tried to explain why Bush won the election. The basic premise of the article is an anti-liberal trend in the popular culture.

The extreme factions of both parties have gained control. There is no longer any middle ground. When a Republican or a Democrat wins an election it is a result of dirty tricks. When the either side loses, it's because the American public is too stupid to know what's right.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home