Journoquiddick -- VRWC vs VLWC/2

Matteo and Kathy Shaidle have a number of posts and links to others' posts concerning the latest liberal-media political scandal to come out of the 'JournoList' usergroup ... In this case, it is the "coordination" by a number of "objective" journalists (which is to say, wholly-owned mouthpieces for the DNC) to bury the story about Jeremiah Wright as relates to alleged-President Obama.

Matteo: The Hits Just Keep On Coming
Matteo: Legally Actionable?
Matteo: All You Need To Know About The MFM

Kathy Shaidle: But remember: minorities can't be racists, and liberals can't be 'haters'
Kathy Shaidle: 'Rev. Wright is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life'
Kathy Shaidle: Wow, this sounds so familiar ...



The "liberals" seem always to be in a tizzy about the famous so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy" ... I think it's because they're *jealous* of conservatives, with our lone imaginary "vast right-wing conspiracy." And they're jealous because all their conspiracies always turn out to be merely half-vast.

In political calculus, it appears to be the case that iVRWC > x(VLWC/2) for all values of 'x' -- it appears that one imaginary "vast right-wing conspiracy" is greater than any number of "half-vast left-wing conspiracies."

===
Look, boys and girls, this newest scandal, like all the rest, *is* "liberalism," and there can be no compromise by sane persons with it. "Liberalism" is wicked, it is morally evil, and thus it necessarily corrupts all who embrace it. "Liberalism" has not a damned thing to do with "helping the disadvantaged" -- and even that self-congratulatory phrase is morally and rationally offensive (*) (**) -- rather, "liberalism" is all about the acquiring of and holding onto power over the lives of others.


(*) Concerning "the disadvantaged" -- to call poor persons "disadvantaged" is to at least imply that those who are not poor are so due to some unfair and unearned advantage ... and it is to imply that poor are poor because the not-poor cause them to be poor. Calling poor persons "disadvantaged" is, at best, but another reflection of the "liberal" refusal to understand wealth and its creation and uses.


(**) Further, no one is holding a gun to "liberals" heads so as to stop them from using their own wealth as they see fit to help the poor, if that is really what they wanted to do ... and let's not even get into the question of whether the sorts of help they are ever willing to consider can actually help anyone (***). Rather, it is "liberals" who are always gung-ho for holding guns to everyone else's heads so as to compel them to "contribute" "their fair-share" toward "helping the disadvantaged."


(***) The adage, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life" expresses a conservative understanding and approach. The "liberal" version of the adage is: "Teach a man to fish and you have a job for today; give a man a fish and you have a lifetime employment."