This book seemed at first like I was reading the required daily writing journal of the quiet, nerdy boy next to me in my 11th grade Creative Writing class. It contains a variety of items including essays, stories, plays, poems and Shakespearian play updates. Most are funny, especially the footnotes. What's not to like about a second generation American seeing Superman as an "immigration story"? The QR code links to YouTube contain images you are unlikely to forget. There are a few serious stories like The Girl Who Became a Gun.

In the third section of the book, the author finally begins to discuss libertarianism in extremely serious blog reposts. He makes a great point that using government funds received by taxing artists to fund other, possibly lesser, artists makes absolutely no sense. The selection of what is good art is always subjective and having a huge bureaucracy do it is absurd. I also have wondered why there are few people interested in serious issues anymore but instead just want to watch the same recycled plots over and over again in movies and plays.

I enjoyed both sections of the book but I believe the lack of transition between the two types of writing was too abrupt. It would have better to separate the two into two books. I spent the first two thirds of the book wondering how the title related to what I was reading because the title covers only the topics in the last third of the book.

I received this book in a Goodreads giveaway but that did not impact my review.

 

 

 

Everyday when debating issues with people I hear the same old tired complaints from leftists:

 

"Well, you get your news from Faux News/Faux Noise/(insert thinly veiled  insult disguised as pseudo witticism here)"

 

As if the only way I, an independent conservative former Libertarian, could ever develop an informed opinion without my conservative "masters" telling me what it is and how to present it. I find this highly insulting and, to be blunt, this is the epitome of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. When I hear the same talking points ad nauseum and verbatim from so many different people, I cannot help but assume that they came from the same source, because it's virtually impossible that so many different people can parrot the same exact lines without harvesting them from the same orchard. I could be wrong, but a duck is a duck, after all.

 

So, is Foxnews really Satan's platform for spreading the subversive messages of modern conservatism? No doubt they have an agenda, no doubt that agenda is right leaning and no doubt there are scores of people who do indeed get their opinions from that single source, exactly the way left says they do. FoxNews viewers and right wing extremists share a common core; rejection of everything "liberal", in the modern sense, though not all are rabid extremists and not all agree on everything.

 

The main reason "liberals" hate FoxNews is that until FoxNews came along, the "liberal" left had a monopoly on so-called "news" coverage in this country and there was no outlet for the other side except Rush Limbaugh, and Ozzy knows that message is about as right leaning and shrill as any political entertainment program out there, but it was the ONLY one for a long time. FoxNews emerged as a conservative voice in a "liberal" wilderness of PC thuggery and right wing hating demagoguery that demonized anyone and everyone who dared speak out against anything "progressive" (which is another word bastardized into meaning exactly the opposite of it's original definition). Still, to this day, FoxNews pretty much stands alone as the only conservative based "news" media outlet, pitted against NBC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Huffington Post, Mother Jones and so many other left leaning "liberal" apologist sources that there are too many to name in this blog post. (Here is a link that lists most of them) *This same source has an equally long list of conservative news outlets, most of which are internet based*

 

And what is the message these "news" outlets want you to know? Conservatives are ALL racists, backward thinking, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging contrarians who want to keep you down, take all the "wealth" and hoard it so no one can ever hope to rise above the poverty level, leave your parents and grandparents destitute and steal their Social Security, deny children an education and food...basically we are all evil and hate anyone who isn't white and rich. Conservatives want to "...have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance..."; we are "tea baggers", neo-Cons, war mongers, homophobes and religious nuts and all we want is more, more, more...

 

So, is it really surprising that, in the face of this much raw hatred from the left, fomented by every "news" outlet on television, in print and on the radio, conservatives would flock to the one place where they can have their beliefs and their ideals championed? I was bullied as a child, mercilessly, because I was a skinny little runt with big ears and because children are the cruelest creatures on this earth until they learn what it feels like to be on the receiving end. I was beaten, ridiculed, terrorized and tortured for most of childhood, until I found a friend who decided I was worth talking to, worth being with and once I found that one friend, I knew for sure that no matter what happened to me, I always mattered to him. He was there when I needed him (and still is), so I stuck to him like glue. FoxNews emerged as that one friend for conservatives, when the rest of the media world was bullying them. And "liberals" hate Fox, not because of the message itself, but because it isn't THEIR message, because it offers a different (though not necessarily always correct) choice than "fall in line or f**k off". 

 

To be fair, "liberals" these days are no less demonized, no less the subject of hate filled diatribes from the right leaning pundits and ideologues and have every right to be as insulted by what some on my side throw at them, the caveat being that the vast majority of right wing mudslinging occurs on social media and the internet rather  than from institutionalized and highly regimented "traditional" news outlets. 

 

But if you're reading this far, if you haven't automatically fallen into the trap of dismissing my message because it's true but it's different from yours, then read this:

 

DON'T get your views from television shows, DON'T base your opinions on the same misinformation others in your "party" spoon feed you and DON'T let your default position be whatever the news media you watch tells you it should be if you want to be a "good American", because America wasn't born with that mindset, it was born with the mindset that WE ALL, "conservative", "liberal" or whatever, have an equal say in the direction the country takes, we ALL are important and we ALL have a voice...don't let yours be silenced by FoxNews, or MSNBC or me or ANYONE...the future of the country depends on it.

 

 

The pie analogy, wherein the ideals of any one thing are compared to a pie, and the equitable sharing of that pie is the metaphoric device used to parcel out such grandiose notions as "fairness" and "equality", is a favorite of the modern "progressive" ideologue.

So, as an exercise, let's explore this analogy using its own device.

 

Our pie, in this exercise, is "wealth" and for the sake of argument we'll call "wealth" the amount of money one must accrue before they no longer need concern themselves with whether the bills are covered or the groceries are covered and they have a home and a conveyance (or maybe even two). "Wealthy" people in our little play could be considered "rich" or in the "1%". Got it? Good.

 

"Poor" people, by comparison, could be considered as living "paycheck to paycheck", maybe they have a car, maybe they don't, but it's not a good one and the roof over their heads is over the heads of the immediate  neighbors on either side and may well be the upstairs neighbors floor. They call themselves the "99%".

 

These two groups, the "wealthy" and the "poor", have cross sections within their respective groups that share much of the same demographics, but one group is comprised of one dominant subset and the other group a different  dominate subset. These distinctions have been drawn along racial, gender and economic lines by the political class which play one against the other for political gain and corporate favor.

 

So, we've got a big ol' hot, steamy American pie, "wealthy" people and "poor" people all with plates and forks in their hands, each blaming the other for either having too much pie or for insisting on pie simply because they're in the kitchen. And in the middle, the politicians and their cadre of willing apologists in the media on television, on the the radio, in the papers and on the internet fan the flames, twirling the ends of their moustaches and laughing behind their sleeves.

 

Here's what they don't want you to learn.

 

The pie is there for everyone to share in, as much as you can grab. Capitalism is the oven and the desire to earn a bigger share of pie is the fire that bakes it. The ingredients are simple; hard work, education, perseverance and a dash of stubbornness, with a little pride sprinkled in for taste. And there's plenty of pie, plenty of ingredients and plenty of fire; unfortunately, the politicians control the gas to the oven and so we all have to go out for pie, pie that doesn't taste as good, isn't made from the right ingredients and costs ten times as much.

 

Of course, some people, "wealthy" and "poor", don't care about anything but getting all of the pie and they'll beat their own mother's with a rolling pin to get it. They feel like they deserve as much pie as anyone else and more. They'll cheat people out of their shares, hit people over the head and just take it or they'll tiptoe up when no one's watching and steal the pie right from the window ledge and it seems like no matter how many times they get caught, they never get burned. The politicians know this, too and they love it, they love it because it distracts attention away from the legal theft they perpetrate by creating and passing laws that benefit no one but themselves and their corporate concubines, all the while looking the other way while pie just disappears into the ether. And to make it all even worse, they didn't earn a SINGLE SLICE...they get all of their pie from the Community Bakery, where pie is taken from everyone's share (as if it wasn't small enough!) at the point of a gun whether they like it or not. "LEGALLY". So, what can be done?

 

If you find out someone's been sneaking up to the window sill and stealing your share of pie, we have another dessert, a just dessert called the Rule of Law and we can let those thieves and criminals and politicians have the whole thing, right in the face, because the Founding Father's Bakery knew there would be some unsavory pie makers cutting corners and using inferior flour and Aspartame and flouride and GMO's, so they whipped up a recipe never before attempted called a Constitutional Democratic Republic, where "wealthy" and "poor" all have access to the ovens and the ingredients and, if they have the fire, can make as much American pie as they can hold, even give some away to those who can't for some reason go out and make their own.

 

So, tired of working your fingers to the bone kneading the dough and only getting bony fingers? Put your Big Boy/Big Girl chef's hat on, gather your ingredients together and get to bakin' ! Oh, and wash your hands first...

 

How's that for a pie analogy? Too crusty? A little sour? Overbaked? Not flaky enough?

 

 

#politics #democrat #republican #obama #money #america 

I picked up this book because I knew that I was Libertarian, but wasn't sure what that really meant. I have taken tests in school to see where I fall in this political mess and got the same results. Libertarian. Ok. What the heck does that mean? Hence, why I picked up this seemingly dry-looking non-fiction, political book. I want to know what people are talking about. I want to be able to hold a "political" conversation. I want to be more present in what's going on around me. So I read.

Murray has a way with wording that allows me to understand. He doesn't use huge, impossible words. This book is accessible for all adult readers. He breaks down common ideals that Libertarians hold and interprets them according to how he sees them and how he lives by them. It was more enjoyable to read with the author inserted in the book, rather than reading a dry, textbookish prose. There are even a couple times when he breaks down wording in an ideal and tells what that really means. (I already returned my book to the library, so I can't give you an exact example. My apologies.) Something really cool that he did was recognize the use of the pronoun "he". Murray explained this is his choice because he's the author and he identifies as male and uses the pronoun "he". From a language perspective, I found this insanely interesting and awesome that he even mentioned the rhetoric. Pretty meta. Me likey meta.

This book basically solidified that I am, indeed, a Libertarian. I think I am more of a lower case libertarian, like Murray admittedly is. There are things that I absolutely agree with, but there are others where I could be lenient on. I'm not a full-force radical, by any means. I found this book to be crazy informative without shoving information down my throat. It wasn't trying to convince me to change my views either. I'm curious as to whether or not it reads the same if I subscribed to a different political party. Let me know in the comments if you've read this and feel that he's trying to lure others to join this revolution.

After Murray lays down all the atrocities and what should be happening, he goes to tell us things we can do and change for the future. I appreciate that his goals are realistic. He knows he won't be able to see the changes in his lifetime. This stuff takes time and people are stubborn.

My rating and why: I gave this book four stars! I read it and really enjoyed it. I felt that I benefited from reading it and would recommend this book to those searching for a political book. While I won't be able to win a debate about politics, I will definitely have a better grasp of my beliefs and how they translate. For a non-fiction book talking about politics, it was written in a tangible way that didn't scare me off.

Got tired of the author's self-promotion and whining but he made some good points on political and monetary issues.