I have a theory about leftists, socialists, etc., and that is they don't have any employable skills and thus find crusades that take little to no work. In other words there aren't a lot of nuclear engineers that are socialists. But there seems no limit to the number of sociology majors who are socialists. Or PETA protesters that vote left (what does animals rights have to do with fiscal policy? Nothing, but it's not about the animals). Or environmentalists (again, logic would suggest there would be equal amounts of environmentalists between capitalists and socialists, indicating it's not about the environment, but their egos). Regardless, people who plain just don't want to work will go and find a crusade and join it so they feel good about themselves. And you must understand a crusade to create something of worth (a business, jobs, a work of GOOD ART, a new technology, etc) takes REAL effort, while a crusade to destroy something or simply protest against it takes no effort. Ergo why you will never see a leftist cause or crusade designed to build or create something of worth. It's always "against" something that already exists. Ergo, why I found this poster from 1919 very interesting;
Again, I doubt the women who were in the prohibition crusade were in it to get people to stop drinking as much as they were to make themselves feel better. Besides, if they really wanted to get men to stop drinking they wouldn't have made themselves the POSTER CHILDREN TO STOP DRINKING.
With those mugs it would only DRIVE men to drink.
9 comments:
Capt,
Your post is interesting on a couple of levels. One, those broads are UUUUUggggly!!
Two, I have read that prohibition got it's momentum in part because husbands were wont to spend the entire family's budget drinking, leading to the wife and children going hungry/getting pitched onto the street.
Now, looking back, the real problem was women's lack of financial rights, and logically women should have protested for increased RIGHTS (such as holding their own property and bank account so the lush husband couldn't drink it all away). However, women having their own bank account was such a radical concept that protesting for those type rights either never occured to them or they knew there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that they would get it. So they went after booze. Instead of attacking the problem (lack of control over their own life), they attacked a symptom.
I wonder how many causes of today will boil down to be something like that. Will environmentalists abandon spotted owls and start to protest modern property ownership laws/taxes or the prevalence of "international" waters (everybody's dumping grounds), and will welfare reformists start to protest the existing foster system/adoption laws?
Hmmmmmm. Captain, your a deep, deep dude.
I would tap them.
All I can say to that sign is: Thank $deity!
I like to refer to this group as
"CAVE" People.
Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
You are right, they have been with us since the beginning of time.
The one on the left is a hottie...
Is that Nancy Pelosi in the center under the sign???
If they're so against drinking, how did they all end up with Bitter Beer Face?
I'm sure they all have great personalities.
You could just as well say that the bias is on the other side. It's hard to figure out a libertarian solution for global warming, so libertarians choose not to believe in it.
It's long bugged me that you can predict someone's opinion on the science of global warming by looking at their political views. If we were intellectually honest, the two would not be correlated.
I'm a libertarian, and I think global warming is for real. This is a challenging situation to be in, but I don't think it's an insoluble one.
(And, btw, I have a job that pays quite well...but I still found a crusade to join when Ron Paul was running for president ;)
"You could just as well say that the bias is on the other side. It's hard to figure out a libertarian solution for global warming, so libertarians choose not to believe in it."
Or they just believe that the market will provide solutions to problems as they arise, and do so far more cost effectively than some preemptive government plan.
I think a lot of libertarians don't believe in global warming because they question the motives of the people preaching it.
I have yet to see anyone debunk the sunspot hypothetis, myself.
Post a Comment