post-colonialist authorities

I thank the social media commentariat for clarifying that school slashings perpetrated in China by mad people, are providentially mitigated by good laws that forbid civilan gun ownership, curtail political dissent, subdue public assembly, ban weird religious worship, and harvest valuable organs of executed enemies of the state. But in light of my brief career as a dissident in a totalitarian state, using China as a moral or jurisprudential authority for honoring and upholding our Bill of Rights appears on a par with advocating sex with virgins as a cure for AIDS.

5 thoughts on “post-colonialist authorities”

  1. “….a rifle on par with those used by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    It was Bushmaster, a hobby gun, certainly not on par with those used by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Do you even have time to read New Yorker article? I used to, a long time ago. What a waste of time.

    One thing about China and Mao, though. It was FDR who helped Mao come to power because he thought Mao was a democrat, a good guy who wanted to help the poor.

      1. “The New Yorker commissions some of the best journalism.”

        Maybe they should commision you.

        “You cannot expect the same excellence from its house staff.”

        So New Yorker engages in the same kind of bs like WSJ? I know WSJ hires some of its staff based on whom they know, not based on merit.

        1. Ricardo requires me to ply my comparative advantage, whereby I make a much better performance artist, than any kind of journalist. Than said, with Rawls no longer with us, I know of no one that chooses men on merit regardless of whom they know.

          1. “Ricardo requires me to ply my comparative advantage, whereby I make a much better performance artist, than any kind of journalist.”

            What kind of performance artist? You would make an outstanding journalist based on your brilliant retort on the hypocrisy of modern democracy, absolutely the finest I’ve ever read, that piece about MLK.

            “Than said, with Rawls no longer with us,…”

            You talking about John Rawls of ‘A theory of Justice’?

            “I know of no one that chooses men on merit regardless of whom they know.”

            I would agree most would not choose based on merit alone. However, I did expect that at least publication like WSJ would practice something akin to what Soros referred to as ‘intelligent nepotism’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *