Wednesday, November 01, 2006

A Vague Sense of Humanity Peaks Through

Or something like Sweetie insisted that I sleep in to stave off the ebola, dengue fever or perhaps the common cold that seems to be knock knock knocking at Michael's door. As a reult, I feel pretty good...hmmm...maybe I should always do what my Sweetie suggests...

Whoa! Did you hear those alarm bells at Men Central go off? Sorry...

Anyhow, I know what you're all really interested in this AM is the male equivalent of the WonderBra, the WonderCup. Here's the advertising slogan:
"The new 'wondercup' technology in these attention-grabbing, all-cotton Patriot briefs will have you seriously looking bigger and feeling amazing."
Well, you're just gonna to have to read abut it yourself right here, because here at Ripley's Ranch, we're resoundingly anti-codpiece, but yes, I am happy to see you!

Instead, I want to touch on losing friends to politics and re-evaluating the tactical reload (and lanyard rings). I could tell you the two subjects are connected, but they're not. Not even moderated related...I believe the High Zoot eyedrops I'm pouring into my aggrieved right eye are, as a side effect, causing me to eliminate mental transitions and exist totally in a world of non sequiturs. To say nothing of the dog...

The Old and Dying Gray Lady of Bloomberg's Happy Gun-Free Paradise ran this interesting story on friends and even families breaking up over politics:
But as the fissures that opened after the 2000 election have become more extreme over the last six years, the divisions are playing out in small and personal ways, influencing friendships, acquaintances and even family dynamics. In some cases, the divisions have caused painful rifts. In others, they have simply produced a wary quiet.
But James Taranto, in his must-read column Best of the Web, over on OpinionJournal notes an interesting point first brought out by blogger Josh Trevino: "every person in the piece who actively rejects a friend or family member over politics is a Democrat" From Trevino's blog:
To borrow a non-leftist parallel, one is reminded of Ayn Rand's furious fault-finding with those who dared disagree with her. . . . But Rand's group was, and remains, essentially a cult. The Democratic Party is not. Or, I should say, it didn't used to be.
I think I mentioned a while back that my Sweetie and I were "braced" in our favorite Mexican restaurant in Boulder by a person I thought of as a good friend, who spewed an apparently endless string Daily Kos "Bush Is Satan"-isms and nearly succumbed to wholesale political apoplexy before we shrugged it off and left.

I will readily admit that I am just a touch out of step with Boulder — if the folks at my favorite hippie restaurant/brewpub Mountain Sun knew what I did for a living, they wouldn't seat me. They'd probably even stone me, if they could un-stone themselves...however, politics is politics, and friendship — so I thought — is something else.

We ran into the same person again, at the same restaurant — Rio, for the margaritas...don't miss it if you're in Boulder for a peace demonstration or the Annual Beer Riots at the University of Colorado...they also have a wicked cool biking jersey for sale.

This time, our one-time friend clocked instantly upon seeing us, spewing spittle and a string of almost non-sensical 1960s SDS slogans, concluding with, "I'll bet you want to kill a Commie for Christ, doncha?" To which I replied, "Well, at least I have the means to do so if I choose," and left the scene.

"That was odd," said my Sweetie.

I am reminded of my friend Doug Marlette, the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial (and usually very liberal) cartoonist, who was shunned by his leftie friends when his "What Would Mohammed Drive?" cartoon (Mohammed in a U-Haul loaded with rockets; read about it in the Columbia Journalism Review) triggered the usual Islamic response...death threats, blah blah.

The question is, I suppose, at what point did liberalism become so wildly intolerant of even the slightest differing opinion?

My particular branch of libertarianism, which is centered around Bill of Rights issues (of which the Second is the usual battleground), demands tolerance. To wit, I don't care what you do as long as you do it on your own property and don't involve me or mine in it.

If you want to hold Pagan rituals involving vast amounts of marijuana, nakkedness and baying at the moon while marrying multiple members of the same sex, go to it...I'll send a congrats card — Hallmark makes those, don't they? Just don't drive impaired., because that moves you from the personal to the public. I accept that there are good people who disagree with me...unfortunately, none of them are in the House or Senate!

I will readily admit (had my former friend given me 10 seconds without spittle) that Alf the Wonder Beagle could have done a better job of running the war in Iraq than George Bush, and that the current batch of Republicans "politicians" would make a maggot gag. But DO NOT serve me up a left-wing whacko cut-and-run coward gun-hating dim bulb like Nancy Pelosi as an alternative! I am tolerant, not suicidal.

Whoops...gotta work!

We'll get to the tactical reload later today.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I hate to break this to you, but liberals (or lefty statists, if you prefer, but I do find the term liberals to be quite useful) have ALWAYS had no tolerance for anyone who doesn't completely kow-tow to their own rigid orthodoxies.

It's been this way from the outset.

Here is a link to Herbet Marcuse's essay "Repressive Tolerance" that lays out the plan......liberal tolerance means tolerating only liberal ideas, but actively campaigning for the total supression of any other ideas.

That's the way it's always been.

Another really useful read is The Shadow University.