Prev | List | Random | Next
"Today's Western society has revealed the inequality between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) critics cling to him at all times; he is constantly rebuffed by parliament and the press. He has to prove his every step is well founded and absolutely flawless. Indeed, an outstanding, truly great person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind does not get any chance to assert himself; dozens of traps will be set for him from the beginning. Thus mediocrity triumphs under the guise of democratic restraints."
Here's an old post I stole from ScrappleFace. The pundit was referring to the above Solzhenitsyn excerpt:
"It was impossible for a leader like dubya to emerge back then... people were smarter then!
Another Dubya joke! Prepare to be offended and reflexively bash me as anti-american!
What is the difference between George W Bush and Hitler? Its not that they both insist on invading countries, its not that they both bash pacifists for weakening the country, its not that they both degraded civil rights, its not that they both got their countries closer to 1984.
Its that Hitler actually got a majority of the votes.
And the whole freedom fries thing... I think thats stupid. Oh well I might as well be PC (Patriotically Correct) and commence freedom kissing my girlfriend....
Posted by: Angry_Liberal on March 12, 2003 10:41 PM
Anyhow, I thought the joke was actually funny, but only because it pointed out something the author did not intend: Having the majority on your side does not make you right! (See last Iraqi elections for another example). So seeing this boob hoist himself on his own pittard caused a low wattage light bulb to turn on in my head, and I posted this:
Has anybody noticed that in this go-round satire is used by the conservative side, while feeble jokes and slogans (see Angry above or the equally compelling "Buck Fush" - that's convincing!) seem to be the main heavy artillery of the more pompous liberal establishment. (Political satire, Mr Angry, requires a target that in a way invites the attack due to the ridiculous nature of their position. This is why your side can't use it in this current situation. This might be the real reason you are Angry. Note "Bush is a big fat dummy" is not satire) How the brightest of the left must wince in pain when seeing clearly the truth between the lines of every "news" story here. Keep going Scott, you're in what we in my business call a target rich environment. Keep the faith people!
Posted by: Greyhawk on March 13, 2003 06:15 AM
Then I requested this:
And PS - does anyone know a liberal satire current events site? (The Onion doesn't count) As a bonus it could also be funny, but I think I'm asking for too much. Really, if anyone knows of one they can post it and we can go see how the other half thinks. Anybody? Hello? Please? I promise I'll come back...
Posted by: Greyhawk on March 13, 2003 06:25 AM
The resulting lack of answers led to Greyhawk's Theory, which is serious.
But I submit the precursor to Greyhawk's Theory is Greyhawk's statement on satire in political debate. The side that can use satire is close to the truth. A side whose attempts at satire inevitably backfire probably needs to re-examine their motives.
Greyhawk's Theory on Satire Backfire? Hmmmmm....