Rageboners Are Fully Torqued

Rageboners Are Fully Torqued

Corey WilsonThursday,24 March 2016

The symbol on my Back Button has worn off. It’s not because my computer is old, nor is it because I’m a terrible typist. No, it’s because I’m indecisive and constantly self-correcting. Am I blustering? Of course; if Justin Trudeau can, why can’t I? However, the need to be self-correcting stems from my inherent stupidity. I’ve written a lot of stupid things. Some of those things you’ve seen because I posted it. Most of that stupidity, however, is murdered brutally in revision.

Robert Graves once said that there are no good writers, only good editors. I agree. Many of the stupid thoughts that I’ve given life would make you all puke (literally, not literally). Luckily, revision catches most of the contradictions and the idiocies that I unwittingly breed in first drafts. The ability to hone ideas is one of the reasons I love writing.

Writing gives you time to think before you respond.

Some writers at Fox News, however, seem to disagree with the late Robert Graves. It seems that instead, they like to go at this whole writing thing in one go. Liz Peek appears to be one of those people.

As I’m sure you’re aware, many Republicans are annoyed at President Obama for nominating Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court; most are really just annoyed that he’s made a nomination at all. Why? It’s not because Garland is a dink or a patsy. In fact, he seems to have bipartisan support. It’s because the principle.

English? Barely. Making sense? Not at all.

You see, what people like Liz Peek have a problem with isn’t that Obama’s selection is bad, but that Obama has made a selection. I know I’m repeating myself; I’m just trying to find a way to say it that doesn’t make it seem so dumb.

What it comes down to is essentially this: “President Obama has made really bad decision in the past, and even though this decision is a good one, we’re rejecting it because those past decisions are—as we’ve mentioned—bad.”

Don’t believe me?

It does not matter that the president has nominated Judge Merrick Garland, who is widely admired as a competent jurist. It is not about the person, it is about principle […]”

Seriously. This entire fuss is nothing more than an opportunity for people to flex their rageboners. And damn doesn’t it feel good to flex your rageboner. In fact, the blood has rushed so wholly from her head to her dick, that she’s even implying that Garland is a patsy.

“As a result, the Court is being asked to act as a referee, ruling on the legality of Obama’s ‘my way or the highway’ presidency. You don’t change a referee in the middle of a contest.”

Implication aside, what kind of shit, Mike-Huckabee-esc analogy is that? It’s not like Obama removed a referee so he can replace it with another. It’s not like he’s trying to pull a fast one. Antonin Scalia has died, and a replacement is needed.

“This isn’t about Judge Robert Bork, or the “Biden Rule” — this is a fight about President Obama undermining the checks and balances established in the Constitution.”

Of course it’s not. This is about your blind hatred. To put it another way:

“Even though I agree with your choice of fridge, I refuse to accept that selection because last weekend you thought the chicken could use five more minutes when in fact it did not, and I don’t like dry chicken.”

Take Action!

Hat Tips:

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons



Subscribe to get updates delivered to your inbox