Memo For File XCII

14 Aug, 2009 by Morgan Freeberg

Print this article Font size -16+

I had this horrible nightmare in which I was becoming a good friend of mine, an older gentleman who drank himself to death. It got me to thinking some more about Meghan McCain’s idiotic comments, and how they connect together with what I had to say in response to one of Mahatma Ghandi’s most famous quotes. These two things connect together.

This is the biggest of all the reasons McCain is embarrassing herself when she opens her mouth. There are many of those, of course; but this is the great-grandpappy of ’em, and as decent and as thorough a job as Cassy did eviscerating her, nobody’s mentioned this one that I can see.

Let’s walk through some littler ones though. First, Meghan suffers from the delusion that she’s found a “gotcha” on Michelle…

Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit and author of the recent book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, was asked during a live chat on Politico’s The Arena on Friday which conservative political figure or commentator needs to shut up. Guess who her answer was? Yeah, that’s right — yours truly.

So Michelle Malkin successfully rounds out the trifecta of extreme female conservative pundits, following Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, who believe that I, and Republicans like me, need to shut up and get out of the party…But what confuses me is this: Malkin recently posted an item on her blog about how “drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

It’s worthy of note, even if you don’t think so Miss McCain, that Michelle Malkin was asked the question — she didn’t offer up the idea that you should be gagged. No contradiction here sweetie. I, too, think it’s un-American to drown out opposing views. And if I’m asked a question similar to what was asked of Michelle, well…
There’s another thing you’ve overlooked on that point, I think. “Needs to shut up” implies the shutting-up is for that person’s own good; it certainly implies that, much more strongly than it implies it’s worth Malkin’s time to break into someone’s bedroom in the middle of the night and surgically implant a gag-ball over that person’s pie-hole. So with that in mind, how does Malkin’s comment about you shutting up correlate to drowning out opposition? It seems as the matter receives greater study, whatever correlation there seemed to be before, starts to soften up and melt away. I think the crucial focus you missed was aptly summarized by me in my Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics (#4):

If there are some contrary facts, then, it is to your benefit for you to be told about them. Your conservative colleague/opponent just might [be] involved an effort, as any true friend would, to stop you from making an enormous ass out of yourself.

Malkin might have been involved in a desire to see you stop hurting yourself.

Or perhaps Cassy Fiano speaks for Michelle as aptly as she speaks for me. She’s as clear as clear gets: “…I’m pretty sure [McCain will] just continue on acting like she’s being crucified in the GOP, when frankly, no one in the GOP even gives a damn about her. We just wish she would stop making idiotic, asinine remarks in our name.”

Now for the big kahuna, the thing that I said as I shamelessly ripped off India’s savior: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the resolve with which it ensures that good guys win and bad guys lose.”

McCain wants the Republicans to be more positive and more accepting. That is her central thesis, and it shows many signs of being not quite all that well thought-out…

It’s true that Democrats make being a member appealing in a much different way than the Republican Party does. The Democrats seem to have mastered inclusiveness — whereas Republicans, like a country club, seem to require a litmus test. But if people like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter think they can bully me into giving up this fight and what I am doing, they are going to be severely disappointed. And I can assure them that unless they start being realistic about the cultural and generational differences between the two sides of the party, there will not be a new generation of Republicans.

The democrat party seems, to a weak mind, to have “mastered inclusiveness.” Those of us capable of paying attention to things have figured out long ago, that what the democrat party has mastered is inclusiveness’ opposite. Just name an issue — any issue you want — and as that issue bubbles up to the surface of a conversation between democrats and non-democrats, each and every time you’ll see a discussion about some “villain” group that has been carefully defined alongside that issue. Whites, Christians, straights, “teabaggers,” those awful corporate chieftan people, “the rich,” stay-at-home Moms, Boy Scouts, anybody who doesn’t want Obamacare, Oil companies, Health insurance companies, lobbyists, bloggers, talk show hosts…I could add on to such a list all day long. Inclusive?

You kiddin’?

What democrats have mastered, is the construction of a barbaric society. Barbaric, the way I’ve described it: Apathy toward the matter that is supposed to be weighing most heavily on our minds, which is the day-to-day assurance that good guys win and bad guys lose. It happens every single time we put democrats in charge of things and it’s happening now. Photo ops with tinpot dictators as we “sit down and talk about our differences with” them. Which are meaningless to us…but mean everything to the tinpot dictator. Next thing you know, they’re emboldened, acting like they’re emboldened, negotiating concessions out of us they wouldn’t be able to negotiate if they weren’t emboldened. First little ones, then big ones.

Back at home, it becomes unprofitable and pointless to try to build a business. Why bother? If you’re profitable, the new regime will just take all your money. And so people sit on their asses some more. The democrats rationalize this because the poor, poor pitiful poor who can’t get jobs, are in a different economic layer than the folks who would’ve opened a new business and decided not to. So it’s not like the same malaise is hitting everyone, right? But it is. It’s exactly that way. An entire civilization is being incentivized to sit on its ass. Ass-sitting is the new hard-work. Crime is the new law-abiding. Capitalists are the new bums. Mean is the new nice.

Everything’s upside-down.

Meghan doesn’t see this kind of world, because frankly she’s too young and thick. As Cassy’s commenter MLH says,

I follow Meghan on Twitter (just wanted to see what all the hype was about) and I can’t disagree with anything you say about her…I’ve been following Ms. McCain for three months. In that time frame all I’ve discovered is that: #1 She’s managed to get around four or five speeding tickets in the past few months(no clue how she still has a license other than her last name). #2 Gone to L.A. for a “No H8TE” photo-shoot. #3 Gone to NYC for some kind of photoshoot. #4 Out somewhere at parties & clubs in L.A., and NYC. #5 Learned all the complaints about her apartment and how shopping is such a hassle at various stores. #6 Going to Sturgis to be cool with all the bikers (Daddy told her to “be careful.” #7 Four hours one day of hysterics because she fell for some weirdo’s suicide note to the point where she actually got her PR person to contact Twitter and the police to get the man help — turns out he “wasn’t serious and will seek intensive help” after she gave him the attention he needed (she got a kudos from Alan Colmes on that one with the gracious statement that her actions “only show how much she cares.” #8 And finally, One time she asked all her followers what she should write about in her next column at The Daily Beast. This girl is indeed vapid beyond belief and one glaringly obvious reason why influential people’s children should be rarely seen, and even rarer heard.

People who fit this profile, seem to rise up to outvote the rest of us every sixteen years. Meghan is older than sixteen, but not much, and her comments about politics generally indicate someone who only started paying attention to things over the last year or two, perhaps less than that. She isn’t even up to par with the average voter, who’s already seen it happen a few times: We put liberals in charge when we get sick of conservatives, and conservatives in charge when we get sick of the liberals. And we get sick of liberals about three or four times quicker. It’s their solutions, you see. They don’t work.

They encourage sloth, dysfunction, anarchy and crime.

Meghan McCain is “pro sex.” Good for you, Meghan. Sex, sometimes, is not a vice…sometimes, on the other hand, it is. Evidently you haven’t been around long enough to hurt someone by having sex, so it’s a good thing overall that you’re blind to this. But maybe if you spent a little bit less time Twittering, and a little bit more time actually talking to these people you think want to apply these litmus tests that you yourself are far too decent to apply to someone — hah! — you’d find out what so many others understand they’re really all about.

It’s not about excluding people from things.

It’s about doing what leads to good things, and staying away from what leads to bad things. For our own sakes, and for the sake of those closest to us. FOR the PEOPLE. I had a nightmare in which I hurt people close to me by drinking a lot, something I actually saw someone else do. The hurting people by having sex, I’ve already done. The essence of Christian behavior is to say “Let’s just try to stop doing that stuff okay?” The essence of democrat behavior, and Meghan McCain behavior, seems to be: Don’t you dare say a word against any of that, someone might feel excluded.

When we forget about Morgan’s definition of a decent society, nine times out of ten I notice we do it by starting out on the path you’re on right now. By being “accepting” of this or that. Ghandi also said “hate the sin, love the sinner” — it’s such a great summation of Christian attitude that it’s often mistakenly attributed to Christ Himself. This denotes a distinction requiring an observing mind sharper and more capable than yours, I think. This is the problem you represent, Miss McCain. You’re so anxious to show off that you’re universally accepting of people…when you really aren’t, but that’s a whole other story…that you end up setting yourself up as a champion of just-plain-bad ideas. Drinking yourself to death, dropping out of school, having kids before you can afford to raise them, adopting a kid without both a mother and father in the home, smoking crack, voting for Obama, robbing liquor stores, rioting, calling a motorcycle gang a bunch of pussies…just pointing out these are bad ideas, doesn’t automatically mean you’re “excluding” the people who have been doing them. Failing to regard them as bad ideas, doesn’t mean you’re an accepting person. You don’t have the brainpower to understand this. You’re in some great company there.

But your ignorance isn’t a way out of the wilderness, for Republicans or for anybody else. No matter how much smugness you toss into the stewpot with it.

Michelle Malkin answered the question that was put to her very, very capably. Anybody who thought otherwise for whatever reason, only had to read the comments you had in response. It’s almost as if you read what she said, and thought “Hey, someone who isn’t familiar with me might be confused about what Michelle said there…I’d better throw something out where people will see it, so it will all come together and make sense.”