Pat Sajak – C_ns_rv_t_v_ D_ck?

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Pat Sajak has a blog.  It has many pictures of him putting his hand on his chin in a thoughtful pose.  Or sitting on a tall stool, putting his hand on his chin, in a thoughtful pose.  In Pat’s blog, he writes:

Arguing with Liberals, and Why I’ve Stopped

Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Yes, that whole "honor thy parents" thing is a drag.  Poor little Pat often stormed to his room, and dreamed of the day he turned 18, so he could go to Van Nuys and watch people win wonderful cash and prizes by playing a glitzy version of "Hangman".

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court…

That’s "States", Pat.  With a "t".

…with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles…

"One" is spelled with an "e" on the end, Pat.  Man, how DID you get your job?

…when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”.

Actually, it’s Antonin Scal — oh, fuck it.  Never mind.

Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case.

Pat, by the way, was born on October 26, 1946, during the height of World War II and Nazism, so he oughta know.

She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

That’s right.  Pat let the conversation die when his parents threatened to send him to his room.  Even then, Pat was in control of the situation, not bowing to anybody, goddammit. 

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The committed members of the Left also engage in gross stereotypes.  All of them do that.  Every single one.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side.

Yes.  Shame on us for having thinking about the greater good.

If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality.

Well, Pat, if you are merely complaining about the content of music, films or TV aimed at children, then you are not censoring.  But when you want to change — for yourself and others — what that content is, then — yes, I confess — you are being a censor determined to legislate morality.  (I’m inclined at this point to talk about Nazi censorship — you know "for the children" — but I think Pat’s head might explode.)

If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)

What laws against certain kinds of speech is Pat talking about??  Mmmmmm.  I’ll take "Strawman Arguments" for $600, Pat.  Er — I mean, Alex.

When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons.

Realizing that Pat may not have been following politics that closely, I reminded him that there are no such laws regarding what you drive or eat, and that McCain-Feingold was passed by such "Liberals" like, well, John McCain (and found constitutional by all those "Liberals" on the Supreme Court), suggesting he may have overstated the case.  He was not.

The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

Whereas people like Pat, a former desk clerk at a hotel, operate from the moral ground of watching other people spin wheels and turning over letters of the alphabet.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes.

Hey, Pat.  That’s what they proudly call themselves!

My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

One can understand why Pat Sajak, longtime host of the most banal show on television, champions inferiority.  No fan of higher education, he.

On the other hand, he sure know his vowels dern good.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days.

Pat Sajak’s voice is silenced.  A world mourns.

And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

I think Pat’s feelings got hurt.