The Ape in the Corner Office

I suppose that the game he is playing here is fair, on the surface at least.


Semantics is a lawyerly game, however, and I find that I just can't usually stomach lawyers, so let's look at the meat of it.


So, this Conniff asshole has the point of view that "we", somehow, don't deserve anything other than subjugation to his idea that everyone must pay just to exist. An absurd notion, to anyone with even the remotest conscience.

I also find that this douchebag is doing some of the "reframing" thing:

"With a liberal friend, I mentioned a study showing that words like “social” and “contract” make people more willing to pay their share."

This, of course, is predicated on his definition(s) of what this "share" of mine is, if such a thing even exists, which his point of view conveniently does not consider, at all, to wit:

"we need language to remind us that this is our government, and that we thrive because of the schools and transit systems and 10,000 other services that exist only because we have joined together"

"We" don't thrive from our schools, dolt. I thrive from having some intelligence, common sense, decent training and, not least of all, a good work ethic. When enough people do that in close proximity to one another, things (miraculously) get done.

Link via Billy Beck.