With apologies to Ambrose Bierce, I’m starting a 21st century recension of the Devil’s Dictionary here at Rotten Chestnuts. But since it hardly takes a wit the level of Bierce to see through dumbass liberal tactics, I’m calling it D3, the Dim Devil’s Dictionary. Here’s the inaugural entry:
Maud*o*chromatic: Adj. Characterized by hysterical appeals to virtue in lieu of any actual argument. After Maud Flanders from The Simpsons, whose constant refrain in the face of any political or social issue was “won’t somebody please think of the children?!”
My second favorite liberal, Ed Darrell, provides some classic examples here. The context is a “debate” over high-speed rail, but it’s immaterial. Witness:
Making nations work well is not so much statism as it is patriotism, and good common sense. Of course, that is a bigger pigeonhole, and it’s not so easy to invent false snark if you’re in favor of patriotism and common sense, and things it causes other patriots to do — like advocate high speed rail.
If you don’t advocate high-speed rail, you’re unpatriotic.
Southwest Airlines ALSO frees people to travel (it’s a Constitutional right, by the way, but what do you care about the Constitution if it costs you money and benefits other people, right?).
Selfish, greedy people hate the Constitution. And high-speed rail. Also, “travel” is a Constitutional right. Who knew?
And get ready for this hissy fit:
You are held completely in thrall to the “statism” that says Americans should have opportunity only if they are rich, that Americans cannot benefit from high speed rail. Oh, you curse the fact that you couldn’t oppose the creation of the interstate highway system (National Defense Highway Act, but who could ever invade us, right?); you rue that liberal Lincoln’s subsidizing the transcontinental railroads, and the giveaways to those lazy louts, the pioneers who settled Wisconsin, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon, California and Colorado — they’ve had their hands out ever since!
Statism? No, Marie Antoinette was right, with “Let them eat cake!” If they’re not smart enough to substitute cake when they can’t afford bread, they DESERVE to have no way to develop economically, no way to travel for jobs or education or pleasure, and they MUST be held in thrall to the oil companies and auto makers!
But he did put “/sarc” afterwards, so that’s ok. Because otherwise we’d have to order up a fainting couch and a balsam specific, to prevent him from becoming a danger to himself and others.
Meanwhile, the only arguments for high-speed rail are
High speed rails and people being able to get other places, faster, keeps them from the mercy of a centrally managed system
which is exactly bassackwards, and
High speed rail frees people from having to stick in the local community
which is frankly bizarre, coming from someone who in the very next paragraph would go off about those American heroes, the pioneers. Presumably they traveled to “Wisconsin, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon, California and Colorado” in high-speed Conestoga wagons….?
It’s nothing but one long, loud, Maudochromatic screech.
[UPDATE: we're up to hatred of civilization itself. From mere hatred of humanity
anti-good neighbor, cynical misanthropic political views of any Tea Partier/Remnant GOP/self-proclaimed libertarian
we have progressed to
Yes, Amtrak loses money — all public transportation does. Roads lose a lot more, but we amortize it a little better. Other costs are higher (though EPA finally seems to have done away with the lead-poisoning side effect).
If one counts the massive federal giveaways to get the transcontinental rail routes built out, those railroads are still losing money and always have.
Civilization isn’t free.
Wooo!!!! I'll keep you posted, but I think we're about to enter the realm of the metaphysical -- what's left to hate, other than "the concept of existence itself?" Which I'm sure conservatives are also against, because this whole line of "argument" makes so much sense]..