Malcolm Gladwell has a new podcast called Revisionist History where he deconstructs what we think is how the world works. In his last episode of the podcast’s first season, The Satire Paradox, he explains why Jon Stewart packed it in last year and went off to become a hermit on his wife’s farm for rescued animals- satire doesn’t work.
This year, we’ve seen Stephen Colbert try to make the transition from satire to mainstream late night with mixed results. The other night, he connected. It wasn’t satire. No, it was something else. It sounded like Stephen turned out collective exasperation with Trump into something more like righteous indignation %^&*ing the lying asshole. He makes Donald look like an old, stupid conman and his supporters like a bunch of chumps. Trump’s going to lose his combover when he sees this. This is NOT satire. You can push a liberal too far:
Recently, the Supreme Court overturned a law in the District of Columbia that created a complete ban of hand guns there. Even if you don’t own a gun or even if you would never own a gun, please try for just one moment to look at the world from another person’s perspective. If you do own a gun, you won’t have to pretend. Try to imagine you are a gun owner. You might enjoy hunting, and you are probably interested in ensuring the protection of your family.
Now think about the implication of the DC hand gun ban. How do you think you would feel about that? I used to think people in the NRA were sort of nuts to get really worked up over things like wait times for hand-guns, or background checks. I would argue that those things are not incredibly restrictive, and don’t keep people from owning a gun. Their retort would always be that those laws were steady erosions of the second ammendment. I would think they were sort of hyper-sensitive.
What a difference a law makes. If I imagine myself a gun owner, I would have really been looking closely at the law in DC. You can’t argue that the governent isn’t going to take away your guns, because that is exactly what they were doing for 30 years. We shouldn’t have dismissed their concerns, but because I’m not a gun owner I never knew what they were doing there. I don’t subscribe to the NRA, and really never knew about the ban until Tom Palmer filed his suit, and the case made its way to the highest court of our land.
Barack Obama recently made a statement about the SCOTUS judgement overturning the ban. What do you guess his position is now? He was never for the ban. However, guess how he felt just earlier this year? Did you guess he was for it? Watch the clip below, and you will notice something amazing. Obama manages to be both for the ban and against restriction all at the same time. It is classic Obama. Say something really incomprehensible, so later you can pull a WORM ( What Obama Really Meant).
What is really a feat of sophistry is the reasoning that allows him to be both for a ban and against one at the same time. He seems to be making the argument that there are different sets of rules for the urban dweller as opposed to the rural one.
Very bizarre.
Here is another protester from the Unity sham rally in NH. I think not being able to nail down Obama on his real opinion on second amendment rights might be making him a little uneasy about supporting the presumptuous nominee. After having met him, I thought he was someone I would like to have on my side.
The Confluence 