Liberals Fail Test

Not a fan of Noam Chomsky - don't know what the fuss is all about when it comes to his political views. It's not like he's rock solid in his arguments. Anyway. For those of you out there who like him, here's a digestable piece in The Progressive.

In fact, he repeats something I've been saying all along: Ridicule the Tea Party at your peril. Moreover, don't ignore some of their legitimate concerns.

***

Ok. I'm going to take a stab. As many long time readers of this blog know or have observed, I tend to stay clear of the "a conservative does this while a liberal does that" type of writing. Too many grey areas to consider in writing in such a clear cut manner.

But I'm going to impart my personal perception of how the left and right are rationalizing the Loughner shooting.

I listen to and read both liberal and conservative radio and publications - and everythig in between - so I think I get the gist of their respective positions. Now keep in mind, I'm not considering the more extreme of each side. Just trying to grasp a general feel for each. I'm sure some of you have a different spin and I do welcome additional thoughts and opinions.

The thing I've liked about conservatives is they actually attempted to go beyond the political aspect of the shooting and explored human themes about death and the inexplicable acts we're capable of. They have, furthermore, explored religion and God. They conclude they really don't have any answers for the Loughner's of this world.

In some cases, I heard one mull over the math and statistical probabilities of it all.

Liberals conversely, so far, have all the answers. It's the rhetoric, stupid. And the lack of gun control. And the right-wing agenda. And Sarah Palin. So the discussion evolves from that perspective onwards.

It seems so churlish. Empty.

You even have (lame) local sports writers making such (unprovable) claims in their sports columns up here.

Not one comment that made you stop and say, "Hmm." Personally, that's what I'm searching for.

Liberals claim to have a conscious and want to be humanists. They're nothing of the sort for when time comes to offer thoughtful ideas about the infallibility of man they falter. They have nothing. Just tired old cliches. And then they wonder why no one is listening.

Socialists are far more agile and reflective when it comes to man's condition. I know some of you may think what's the difference between a socialist and liberal (and they do overlap) but they do have their own philosophical outlook. I don't agree with socialism but it does offer perspectives we should consider, if not heed.

Heck,even  libertarians and anarchists and all the offshoots try harder than liberals these days.

Ok. That's my spiel for the day.