I am almost tempted to start this heavily lifted post with the best single paragraph I've read in a long time. Almost. Instead, I'll lift only part of funny post. Make sure you go read the whole thing. Good night, I love the blogosphere! Here's a toast to James Lileks, one of the funniest guys on this internets thingy:
There is a reason I keep blogging, more than one, actually. Mostly, it's because the smartest people are doing it and sharing insight with the wit and incisiveness you'll never flippin' hear come out of Katie Couric's pursed mouth.
“I’m going to vote for President Hillary,” (G)Nat said when we got home. I asked her why.
“Because she is a woman and she seems like a good leader.”
Well, let’s just Godwin the hell out of this for grins.
“Would you vote for Hitler if he was a woman?”
She stopped and glared. DAD.
“I’m not saying she’s anything like Hitler," I said. "She’s not at all. But would you vote for someone just because they were a woman?”
“And she seems like a good leader I said. Hitler was not a good leader.”
I considered noting that Hitler was an effective shaper of public opinion as well, but decided to ask her what made a good leader.
“Deciding the best things for people.”
We had a little talk about taxes, and she was surprised to find that the President and the Congresses can just take your money. “That’s wrong.”
Sigh. Careful. This is civics, not brainwashing.
“No, it’s not wrong. We all agree to pay taxes for things we need. We don’t always agree on how much to pay, or what to spend them on. But if they take too much, then we can’t go to Disneyworld.”
Okay, now it was brainwashing. Her eyes grew wide. “I vote for Obama.”
“He might raise taxes, too.”
She looked bereft: “who else is there then?”
Welcome to the club, child. Later we had a discussion about parties, and how they’re like teams. Both want the best for people but they have different ideas about how to do it. Like sports, fair play counts, and everyone shakes hands after the game is over.
It reminded me of this graphic I saw somewhere:
It’s interesting that personal freedom and economic freedom are seen as competing values. You could argue that economic freedom makes personal freedom possible. Go ahead; I won’t stop you. It seems to set up a false dichotomy: if your economic life is completely controlled by the state but you can film yourself sawing wombats in a legal brothel with your six wives watching, you’re personally free. Even if 95% of your income has been taken out of your clumsy little hands and placed in general public trust.
Why does anyone, anyone at all, watch the news anymore?