Jim Henley's argument might give a bit of a clue as to how Bush retains support. Consider the essential part of his argument:
"And what I want to know is, how do you like your blue-eyed boy, government power, Mr. Managerial Liberalism?"
See, a big part of the problem is all those liberals who thought that government power might be used for good purposes. (The use of phraseology reminiscent of high school may also be revealing).
One thing that every libertarian shares with the Conservative Movement is a hatred of liberals. That is why so many self-described libertarians voted for Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry, and continue to support Bush, even now. They share a common enemy. And it can't possibly be a flaw in libertarian philosophy because, like conservatism, libertarianism can never be wrong; it can only be betrayed.
Paris Hilton is not paid for being rich. She's paid for being young, blond, good-looking, and because she's very good at playing a dumb blond on television. Her being an exhibitionist probably helps, too. I'm sure that anyone here can think up several other examples of women filling that ecological niche who weren't born wealthy.
As for the notion of there being no other prominent examples of people benefiting from a reduction the estate tax, how about G. W. Bush, almost every member of the Bush cabinet, Bill Frist, Dick Cheney, the Kennedy clan, the Rockefellers, etc? In G. W.'s case, it isn't even his children; he personally stands to inherit a sizable amount from his mother and father, but I've haven't found any analysis of how much. Or how about just a list of every member of the House and Senate and how much money an elimination of the estate tax would mean for them or their heirs?
As for the Walton's, I think "Walmart heirs" would do fine as a readily understood label, as would "the Coors family."
But, okay, Paris Hilton it is. If prudishness and misogeny can be used to help the cause, by all means make an example of the slut. I'm sure there is no danger whatsoever of having this sort of pandering backfire in any way.
I know it's an offhanded remark, and not even directly on topic, but I still find it interesting that estate tax cuts are now routinely labeled "Paris Hilton's tax cuts," as if Hilton, who is a fairly minor heir in the broad scheme of things is more dastardly than, say, a Scaife, Coors, or Walton, people who are actually spending a lot of money to co-opt the political process for their own benefit.
It looks a little like Puritan misogeny to me, but hey, I'm not a noted progressive pundit.
I would replace "so many people who believe they are liberals don't like labor unions" with, "people who are now called Liberal by Conservatives."
As nearly as I can tell, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan now occupy what is called the "liberal wing of the Republican Party."
The real effect that violating the Geneva Conventions has on our own troops isn't that someday some enemy will violate the Conventions right back at us. It is because torturing enemy combatants is demoralizing to our own men and it allows the worst elements in our military to thrive.
Over on the linked ABC story, the first run of comments were mostly folks saying, "Good. It's about time all you newspapermen/leakers/traitors were rounded up and put in jail."
Of course, the comments also carried the email addresses of said folks. Isn't it nice of them to leave us a trail so that when Hillary gets elected dictator we can round them up first?
Flubber has anti-acceleration properties when bombarded by ... Gamma Rays.
Or maybe it was beta rays, I forget.
Althernately, breast implants in comic books use flubber instead of silicone.
Writerious,
A while back a friend of mine did some etymological research on the nauseated/nauseous thing and tells me that the two have swapped meaning several times over the years.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 10 |
Total: 10 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Max:
Show all comments by Max.