Former MTV VJ Kennedy, whom I had a huge crush on in the 90’s and now follows me on twitter (how awesome is that?), and her former MTV colleague Kurt Loder held a chat about politics and the golden age of music television at New York City’s Museum of Sex on July 31, 2013. The event was held for the release of Kennedy’s new book, The Kennedy Chronicles: The Golden Age of MTV Through Rose-Colored Glasses
They talked about the time Kennedy almost lost her job at MTV for pretending to perform oral sex on a microphone while standing on stage next to then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, about asking Rod Stewart if he really had a quart of semen pumped out of his stomach, about how insane Courtney Love is & the fact that Billy Corgan is an Alex Jones worshiping conspiracy theory nut.
The talk was also about politics and how it was Loder who introduced Kennedy to libertarianism, by turning her on to the writings of Ayn Rand.
More and more people are realizing that both political parties suck balls,” says former MTV VJ and current Reason contributor Kennedy. “And there has to be a better alternative, which is the consistent political philosophy of libertarianism.
Legendary metal vocalist Glenn Danzig was recently interviewed by the Minneapolis-St. Paul City Pages, in which he dropped an inconvenient truth bomb about liberals while talking about the Tipper Gore founded Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), when asked about his hit song “Mother” being his response to Mrs. Gore.
My view on Democrats is that they’re fascists disguised as liberals, or liberal moderates. You’re not allowed to say anything that they don’t agree with. You’re not allowed to do anything. Also, the whole Obama, “I can kill anybody with a drone with no trial,” is kind of disturbing. I’m surprised that more people who are supposedly liberal aren’t more disturbed by it. I think whatever Obama does is OK with them, because he’s Obama. It’s bullshit.
Sounds about right to me.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
I am torn, at least partially, on today’s ruling(s) from the SCOTUS as they relate to the same-sex “marriage” debate. I am torn in the sense that, while I do agree that the Defense Of Marriage Act is un-constitutional, I don’t necessarily agree with the reason it was struck down (I’ll get to that later). Furthermore, I am also partially torn in the sense that I am a big proponent of clearly-defined terms not being re-defined and given new meanings simply for the sake of changes in the willingness of society to accept change.
I am more libertarian (not liberal) minded on most social issues and have no problems with people who are of the opposite sex and want to make a lifetime commitment to each-other. But I draw the line at changing the meaning of things just because you want inclusion in something that another group has.
The simple truth about marriage, something that many proponents of same-sex “marriage” refuse to understand, is that marriage is and has always been an institution that is between a man and a woman. While it is true that over the past few centuries the reasons that couples enter into marriage arraignments with each other may have changed, starting off as primarily financial arraignments centuries ago to now being about love, commitment & family; what has not changed is the people involved, a husband & a wife — or more specifically one man & one women.
Changing the definition of marriage is like changing the definition of water, it just can’t be done. Just as water is the combination of two hydrogen molecules & one oxygen molecule, marriage is the combination of one man and one woman. Furthermore the argument that “people should be allowed to marry whomever they please,” is simply not a valid excuse for redefining what marriage has traditionally been. If same-sex “marriage” is recognized, why not polygamous “marriage?,” or multiple participant “marriage?”
Many of the supporters of same-sex “marriage” (particularly those coming from a liberal / progressive viewpoint) would state that those are straw man arguments the fact is that redefining the definition of marriage to include government recognition same-sex couples as “married” based on the “people should be allowed to choose” argument, doesn’t just redefine marriage but completely undefines it.
That being said, I do believe that same-sex couples who choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other should have some of the protections afforded to married individuals, such as; financial rights, benefits, inheritance, health decisions… I just don’t believe that the institution of marriage should be trampled on to do so.
The other reason I am torn with today’s decision is that I find it truly saddening that the SCOTUS should have even been deciding on a case that involves the issue of marriage. Not only is marriage an issue that the Federal Government has no business being involved in, it shouldn’t even be an issue that government has any say in.
Marriage and people’s desires to make a lifetime commitment to each-other are private matters between those two individuals or those two-individuals and their faith/church or their interpretation of God.
As a small-government loving Conservative, I want the the government out of my life. If you need the government’s recognition of your union for it to be valid in your heart & mind, are you truly living in a free country?
I don’t know if the West is full on Communist already, I would tend to believe that we are only on the path towards it and hope that there is still time to hit the brakes and make a U-turn towards the other direction. This guy however RockingMrE lays down a pretty compelling argument that we are already there.
Here is his website & here is his YouTube page.
As a foul-mouthed, heavy-metal loving tattooed conservative I am often confronted with issues that cause disagreement with others who are supposedly on the same side of the political spectrum as myself.
This morning while drinking my morning coffee and skimming through one of my favorite stops on the interwebs (IOwntheWorld.com) I came across a post about Rosie O’Donnell’s 13-year-old son allegedly getting a tattoo. The ensuing comments on that thread prompted me to write the below response.[IowntheWorld.com is still one of my favorite stops on the interwebs though.]
– – –
This thread reminds me of a conversation I had once with a (very) liberal college professor of mine. Not having liked the college experience much after my first year, I spent most of my next 6 years after High School graduation jumping straight into the workforce. I was a few years older then most of my classmates and thus, pretty much the only one that had the cajones to open up and argue with said (very) liberal college professor when he started on with the usual progressive ideological nonsense. The class wasn’t even a politically oriented one.
One nice spring day, after a rather miserably cold Cleveland winter, I came to class wearing a T-Shirt as opposed to the normal sweatshirts I would wear. I instantly noticed the look of amazement in (very) liberal college professor’s eyes when he notices a bit of one of my half sleeve tattoos poking out of my Ronald Reagan “Old School Conservative” tee shirt.
“Joe,” he started off, the sense of moral superiority firmly in his voice. “I’ve got to say that I’m completely shocked after all the Conservative Right-Wing viewpoints you’ve expressed all semester to see that you have tattoos. How do you justify that while holding such a rigid belief system?”
I chuckled then looked straight at (very) liberal college professor and said, “The answer is in the second paragraph of the Declaration Of Independence. You see as a Conservative I believe that I am endowed by my creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
He didn’t like that answer and pressed on with the ‘how can I justify having tattoos with being conservative line of questioning. He then brought up the religious right and other liberal talking points.
“You are confusing the hard-core religious right, and uppity snobs with what being a ‘conservative’ means,” I went on to tell him. “You see while liberals tend to want to pigeon-hole people and lump everyone into a group into a specific spot where that group falls into the social-order. But as a conservative I am most concerned with the dignity & freedom of the individual. I know that each and every man is his own unique individual and the choices we make as free individuals are our choices & not ones to be made by any other individual or collective.”
He basically didn’t have a response and we continued on with class.
I won’t try to explain my choices of body-art here, as they are my own. Do I regret some of the choices I made? Of course I do, but those choices helped mold me into the man I am today. Each piece of art on my body is a reminder of the person I was at that time & place.
As a firm believe in the first amendment I will never deny the right of anyone to speak there mind. If you think tattoos are stupid, or that they defile the body or any other reasoning you have to dislike body art — that is your right.
It just irks me when people who are supposed to be on the same side of the political spectrum as myself can’t view the choice of getting tattoo as nothing more then an issue of individual liberty — and thus a choice that perfectly aligns with being conservative.
For more Click Here.