Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About AJ DiCintio
AJ DiCintio is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up. Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and polished by experience, to social/political affairs.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Liberals Attack Gun Essay with Arrogance, Omissions
AJ DiCintio
February 1, 2013
In reacting to "Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm" (dailybeast.com/newsweek), a number of liberal commentators have assaulted not just the essay but author David Mamet with the contemptible pretension worthy of the first leftist who had himself carted to the top of the town's highest hill so that looking down on his fellow citizens, he could proclaim the superiority of his "scientifically" derived beliefs to the world.

Luckily, Michael Tomasky's critique (thedailybeast.com) serves as a model for the whole mess of diatribes and therefore saves a lot of time for anyone who takes on the task of exposing and commenting upon their shameless arrogance and omissions.

However, before getting in my two cents on the issue, I should point out that the vitriol aimed at Mamet is not surprising.

After all, the word "gun" alone is capable of sending liberals flailing in the irrational vortex of a finger pointing, statist loving panic attack.

Yet, in this instance, the intensity suggests that something in addition to Mamet's thoughts about guns offended the effetely crystalline liberal psyche. But I'll get to that later.

So, how much of the "little more listening" and the whole lot more thoughtful thinking that Obama conveniently forgot to mention in his advice to "advocates of gun control" is evident in Tomasky's response?

Well, very little, a fact we realize immediately after reading its first few words, which deride Mamet's piece as nothing more than a "bizarre rant" whose "optimal word count" should have been "zero."

Then, there's Tomasky's allowance that Mamet might have cut the essay to four words, specifically, "Me really angry man."

Actually, that lame put-down is deplorably incomplete, though the author makes up for his laziness in the last paragraph by adding "rich" and "white" to his characterization of Mamet, thereby adding class warfare, self-loathing, and race/ethnicity baiting to the amalgam of behaviors and attitudes that define the modern liberal.

This initial incompleteness sets the example for the rest of the piece, in which Tomasky subjects Mamet's ideas and observations to arguments whose glaring, calculated omissions would likely be exposed and ridiculed by fifth graders, certainly by their schoolmates a year older.

For instance, in response to the praise Mamet gives Obama for accepting protection by armed guards for life, Tomasky avoids the full intent of the statement by asking the silly question of whether the playwright "genuinely believes that the Obama family is no different from...any average middle-American family."

Yes, that's the sum of his analysis, with not a word about the Declaration's fundamental notion that the "Creator" endows every person with the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And not a word regarding the very real threats to all three of those rights faced by millions of American citizens who have every right to be appalled and angered by the Pollyannaish liberal view of reality.

Once again, no surprise, for with respect to self-defense, liberals have always tuned up their statist noses at Jeffersonian individualism, a truth that explains why for the past sixty years this nation has been subjected to innumerable sickening incidents in which liberals have reacted to a person who used a gun against an aggressor in the home, at work, or on the street with hand-wringing angst that gives rise to worries about disregard for the criminal's "rights" and interrogatories aimed at discovering whether the victim availed himself or herself of an "avenue of escape" or used "excessive" force.

In another particularly treacherous omission, Tomasky spouts the latest lying liberal meme, which is that liberals believe in an individual's right to "bear Arms," when he lectures that Mamet is free to purchase his own handguns or hire "an armed body person[sic]."

(Holy Mother of Reason! In the dictatorially arrogant, neurotically self-flagellating world of liberal PC, even the term "bodyguard" carries negative connotations of gender!)

In that assertion, he imitates uber-liberal Dennis Kucinich, the newly hired Fox News contributor who takes special care to open every discussion of gun issues by reassuring Americans that in the 2008 Heller case, the Supreme Court protected the individual's right to own handguns.

However, what Tomasky, Kucinich, and other liberals never say is that Heller was decided 5-4, with all four of the Court's liberals vigorously maintaining that the Second Amendment confers no individual right whatsoever.

Moreover, liberals never mention that in his dissenting opinion, joined by the other three liberals, Justice Stevens argues that "there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

They never mention that the Court's two "empathic" Obama-nominated liberals as well as any other liberal justice the president may propose will, unless Satan's abode freezes over, agree with the minority in Heller.

They never mention that if their beloved Supreme Court Empath Wing gains a fifth vote, every state will be free to prohibit individual ownership of any kind of weapon.

And liberals never mention that on Second Amendment questions, they agree entirely with the Court's liberal activists.

But what's the betrayal of intellectual honesty to ideologues who take their cue from the leftist principle that demands everything be subordinated to advancing "the revolution."

Which brings me to the something else that has sent liberals spewing venom at David Mamet:

Specifically, it's that he opens his essay by warning against voraciously big, mightily centralized government, which is certain to bring only "misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death" because it is the lying, depraved race of humans called politicians who make the decisions about Marx's dictum, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Regarding that slam against a man liberals admire as one of the most important thinkers in human history but who is, in reality, at best a stupidly idealistic blustering buffoon, at worst a megalomaniacal, human rights hating, human nature ignoring, pathologically arrogant, power loving freak, Tomasky attempts to disguise his real thoughts and feelings with the ploy of an "oy" that mocks Mamet for the "hoary" and "overused" tactic of bringing up the man whose ideas have brought the world a universe of pain, including that stabbed into the minds of millions of captive college students by the oxymoronic, somewhat sentient beings called Marxist professors, novelists, poets, etc.

But Marx notwithstanding, human nature wins the day as Tomasky gives in to a compulsion to lecture Mamet that he "gets his Marx wrong" because "The famous offending diktat...would not, per Marx's formulation...be enforced by the state [for it] wouldn't really kick in until the state had withered away and the proletariat itself was calling the shots."

Ah, the supremely stupid notion that the elites of a "temporary" dictatorship's politburo, troika, central committee, or gang of four will allow the people to call the shots.

Liberals will never admit it, but they, too, believe the best of all possible worlds has a small group of elites taking all the time necessary to sooth the savage breasts of the proletariat.

After all, as David Mamet would agree, one of their dearest hopes for change in this nation has them enacting a thousand individualism-stifling laws enforced by a million governmental guns to bring about an Obamian revolution that expunges from the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans every last vestige of traditional American principles or, as liberals prefer to say, the bitter, violent, madly irrational, prejudice-inducing ethos that orders the maddened crowd to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server